Obama administration's appeasement to Iranian Islamists

[sambino510]

You mean besides you? Well, people who go along with him when they can see what he's doing to our country (the enemies within).

If you think people who disagree with you are enemies, then this isn't "your" country. That mindset is more akin to Weimar, Germany, than it is to the United States of America. Because here in this country, dissent is one of our Founding principles and an American value. Which, obviously, you have issues with.

So go to Weimar! Be with your own kind.

And that's based on what?

Usually, the ones that oppose us, are the ones we have happened to bomb the shit out of. And I don't know what planet you're from, but bombing the shit out of people, is not being friendly.

In short, after 5 years of him, we pretty much know that anyone he sees as a friend is most likely going to be our enemy. Birds of a feather.

Spoken like a true brownshirt.

I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit. I never said that and you know it. If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.

Sounded to me like he was making an implication that you felt people that disagreed with you are your enemy. This was probably due to the fact that you referred to me as your enemy when in fact you have no idea who I am, and the only thing you know about me is that I disagree with your views. So I see no reason to give a negative rating to someone for making such a connection. Though, I doubt he or anyone else really cares about our positive/negative rating.

 

[Vikrant]

Iran is a signatory to NPT which obligates Iran to refrain from building nuclear weapons. It is that simple.

 

[Moonglow]

Besides the permission given to the Islamists in Iran to continue uranium enrichment, which can soon turn into a nuclear breakthrough capacity according to nuclear experts, the West is basically sending a signal to the Islamists in Iran that they are legitimizing the Iranian government’s support of Assad’s Alawite and police state, Hezbollah’s interference in Syria (and every other geopolitical and strategic issue in the region), and Hamas activities.

How many more decades will it take iran to make a nuke? This has been going on since the 1990's.

 

[Moonglow]

What exactly are the sanctions that were dropped?

 

[Vikrant]

We will not know how far Iran is from building nuclear weapons until Iran starts to co-operate with IAEA. Iran's refusal to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities is in itself a violation of its NPT obligations.

 

[S.J.]

Could you name the supposed "friendly" countries that he is treating like enemies? I just want some specifics is all.

Personally, I can name some for you. For instance, the NSA has been spying on Merkel of Germany, Hollande of France, and several South American leaders. Obama claims to know nothing about it, but I find that hard to believe. So, in that regard, that could be seen as not Obama SPECIFICALLY but the U.S. government in general treating some of our allies like enemies.

You asked me a question, then answered it for me. Thanks.

Also, I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'm your "enemy". I'm just trying to have an interesting political discussion.

Sarcasm, I don't consider you "my enemy". However, I consider anyone who supports those who seek to undermine the U.S. or the principals upon which it was founded, the enemy. If the shoe fits...

 

[sambino510]

What exactly are the sanctions that were dropped?

As far as I know, sanctions that were preventing humanitarian aid from being sent to Iranian earthquake victims, as well as sanctions blocking countries from competing with Iranian athletes abroad.

 

[sambino510]

Could you name the supposed "friendly" countries that he is treating like enemies? I just want some specifics is all.

Personally, I can name some for you. For instance, the NSA has been spying on Merkel of Germany, Hollande of France, and several South American leaders. Obama claims to know nothing about it, but I find that hard to believe. So, in that regard, that could be seen as not Obama SPECIFICALLY but the U.S. government in general treating some of our allies like enemies.

You asked me a question, then answered it for me. Thanks.

Also, I'm not sure what about me makes you think I'm your "enemy". I'm just trying to have an interesting political discussion.

Sarcasm, I don't consider you "my enemy". However, I consider anyone who supports those who seek to undermine the U.S. or the principals upon which it was founded, the enemy. If the shoe fits...

My intention wasn't to answer the question for you. I still only named people that the GOVERNMENT is treating as unfriendly. Meaning, Obama SPECIFICALLY has no bearing on who the U.S. is treating like an enemy. Also, I still would like to know which enemies Obama is treating like friends, when he's reigning hellfire down everywhere from Somalia to Yemen.

 

[sambino510]

We will not know how far Iran is from building nuclear weapons until Iran starts to co-operate with IAEA. Iran's refusal to allow inspection of its nuclear facilities is in itself a violation of its NPT obligations.

If you read the IAEA report on Iran, they do have some concerns but that does not mean Iran has completely disallowed inspections. Inspections have still taken place, but the IAEA wants Iran to comply with its Additional Protocol to allow even more inspections. Iran did sign this additional portion of the treaty, and complied with it for three years, but decided not to do it anymore, which is legal. There's also the Parchin site which I think IAEA inspectors were given limited access to, but for the most part when I read the IAEA reports over the past several years, there wasn't any glaring proof of bad intentions on the part of the Iranian government, certainly nothing warranting economic sanctions or us demanding they stop enrichment entirely.

If Iran wanted to deny inspectors access to a particular site, I believe it should be their right to do so. The U.S. and the IAEA, for instance, have a special agreement where we can deny them access to a certain site due to "national security" concerns. Is it not logical that maybe Iran would have the same concerns over their sites, which are constantly being talked about as targets in international air strikes? Sounds to me like the IAEA has a double standard.

Also, in their reports, the IAEA continues to cite evidence given to them from outside sources, presumably the U.S., that Iran's program is military in nature. However, the IAEA is an independent body, and in my opinion they should not be subject to evidence given to it by other nations, or any resolutions from the U.N. Security Council.

It's interesting to me that people are more concerned about a non-nuclear country that is signatory to NPT than they are about a nuclear country that is not signatory to NPT.

 

[Billo_Really]

If you read the IAEA report on Iran, they do have some concerns but that does not mean Iran has completely disallowed inspections. Inspections have still taken place, but the IAEA wants Iran to comply with its Additional Protocol to allow even more inspections. Iran did sign this additional portion of the treaty, and complied with it for three years, but decided not to do it anymore, which is legal. There's also the Parchin site which I think IAEA inspectors were given limited access to, but for the most part when I read the IAEA reports over the past several years, there wasn't any glaring proof of bad intentions on the part of the Iranian government, certainly nothing warranting economic sanctions or us demanding they stop enrichment entirely.

If Iran wanted to deny inspectors access to a particular site, I believe it should be their right to do so. The U.S. and the IAEA, for instance, have a special agreement where we can deny them access to a certain site due to "national security" concerns. Is it not logical that maybe Iran would have the same concerns over their sites, which are constantly being talked about as targets in international air strikes? Sounds to me like the IAEA has a double standard.

Also, in their reports, the IAEA continues to cite evidence given to them from outside sources, presumably the U.S., that Iran's program is military in nature. However, the IAEA is an independent body, and in my opinion they should not be subject to evidence given to it by other nations, or any resolutions from the U.N. Security Council.

It's interesting to me that people are more concerned about a non-nuclear country that is signatory to NPT than they are about a nuclear country that is not signatory to NPT.

The reason the IAEA continues to cite evidence given to them from outside sources, is because the US has been able to install a puppet (and a stooge), who is friendly to US interests, as its Director. So naturally, we now have a conflict of interest at the top of that organization.

As far as inspections go, I don't see why some people are making such a big deal over inspections at Iranian nuclear sites, but say nothing about inspectors being barred from any Israeli nuclear sites. I'm more worried about Israel's nuclear arsenal, than I am about an alleged nuclear program of Iran's.

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit. I never said that and you know it. If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.

Aren't people who "go along with Obama", people who disagree with you? Because if you don't like what Obama's doing, then you "obviously" disagree with his policies.

Or are you telling me, you agree with Obama?

 

[S.J.]

I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit. I never said that and you know it. If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.

Aren't people who "go along with Obama", people who disagree with you? Because if you don't like what Obama's doing, then you "obviously" disagree with his policies.

Or are you telling me, you agree with Obama?

I'm telling you I don't appreciate being deliberately misquoted. I consider useful idiots like you the enemy because you support those who seek to undermine this country, our economy, and our security, not because you disagree with me.

 

[sambino510]

I'm gonna have to neg you for that bullshit. I never said that and you know it. If you have to resort to misquoting people to make a point, it shows how empty your arguments are.

Aren't people who "go along with Obama", people who disagree with you? Because if you don't like what Obama's doing, then you "obviously" disagree with his policies.

Or are you telling me, you agree with Obama?

I'm telling you I don't appreciate being deliberately misquoted. I consider useful idiots like you the enemy because you support those who seek to undermine this country, our economy, and our security, not because you disagree with me.

I apologize if I misquoted you, but I assure you it was not done in order to intentionally misrepresent your views. It was more of an inference based on what you had said. Still, my goal is in no way to undermine this country or its security, and I do not support people who do so either. That doesn't just go for the security of America, but any country whose security is threatened by their neighbors. What am I doing to harm America's national security?

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm telling you I don't appreciate being deliberately misquoted.

I didn't misquote you. You said you consider people who go along with Obama the enemy. People who go along with Obama, are people who agree with his policies. Since you are against his policies, you are someone who "doesn't agree" with them.

I'll do this in a catagorical argument...

You don't agree with Obama's policies
Some people do agree with Obama's policies
Therefore, you don't agree with some people​

So you consider some people who you disagree with, the enemy.

I consider useful idiots like you the enemy because you support those who seek to undermine this country, our economy, and our security, not because you disagree with me.

And just how do I do that? What support are you referring to and who are these "those" people you're talking about?

You get all pissed off claiming I misquoted you, then deliberately turn around and spew out a bunch of lies about me. You're a fucking hypocrite, a piece of shit human and a really fucking bad American.

 

[S.J.]

Aren't people who "go along with Obama", people who disagree with you? Because if you don't like what Obama's doing, then you "obviously" disagree with his policies.

Or are you telling me, you agree with Obama?

I'm telling you I don't appreciate being deliberately misquoted. I consider useful idiots like you the enemy because you support those who seek to undermine this country, our economy, and our security, not because you disagree with me.

I apologize if I misquoted you, but I assure you it was not done in order to intentionally misrepresent your views. It was more of an inference based on what you had said. Still, my goal is in no way to undermine this country or its security, and I do not support people who do so either. That doesn't just go for the security of America, but any country whose security is threatened by their neighbors. What am I doing to harm America's national security?

I didn't say YOU misquoted me. I said that piece of shit with the Sam Kinnison avatar misquoted me. You know who I'm talking about, the fuckwad who trolls the boards looking for opportunities to flame bait anyone who doesn't heap praise on the communist in the W.H. I believe you are actually interested in a substantive debate, which is more than I can say about most of the lefty hacks on this board.

 

[American_Jihad]

Will Obama Give Iran the Deal of the Century?

November 11, 2013 By P. David Hornik

Israeli officials were described as “furious at the Obama administration” over what seemed to be an emerging nuclear deal between the P5+1 countries (the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, plus Germany) and Iran.

One official was quoted saying that “the Americans capitulated to Iranian maneuvering…. Kerry wants a deal at all costs and the Iranians are leading the Americans by the nose.”

As for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he was described as being “in shock.” That was evident enough in a statement Netanyahu released Friday morning after seeing off Secretary of State Kerry at the airport, in which Netanyahu dispensed with diplomatic bromides and said:

I urge Secretary Kerry not to rush to sign, to wait, to reconsider, to get a good deal. But this is a bad deal—a very, very bad deal. It’s the deal of a century for Iran; it’s a very dangerous and bad deal for peace and the international community.

...

Iran’s allegedly “moderate” president Hassan Rouhani, for his part, did not sound conciliatory on Sunday when he said Iran’s “red lines” included uranium enrichment and that “We will not answer to any threat, sanction, humiliation or discrimination.” But with Iran’s interlocutors—possibly with the exception of France—already apparently ready to fold on the enrichment issue, Rouhani’s words seemed aimed mainly at Israel.

For Israel, after so many avowals of President Obama’s determination to prevent Iran from going nuclear, the latest turn of events is alarming and disillusioning. Many believe that, as long as diplomatic activity between the P5+1 and Iran is going on, Israel is effectively screened out of taking military action. Netanyahu had that in mind when he also said on Friday: “Israel is not obliged by this agreement and Israel will do everything it needs to do to defend itself and the security of its people.”

If the situation looks desperate and Israel takes that course, it will not be without (tacit) allies in the region.

Will Obama Give Iran the Deal of the Century? | FrontPage Magazine

 

[American_Jihad]

The Secret Talks Between Obama and the Mullahs

November 11, 2013 By Majid Rafizadeh

I have long pointed out that Barack Obama’s administration, and particularly president Obama himself, has been more than likely clandestinely communicating and working with the Islamic Republic of Iran much longer than just before the current nuclear talks, and even long before President Hassan Rouhani came to the United States to attend the UN General Assembly. Several national and international outlets have just released more details and reports on this issue.

The crucial point of this issue is that while the American people were told by the Obama administration (an image projected by President Obama) that this September’s “historic” telephone call between President Obama and President Rouhani was the first diplomatic outreach to achieve agreement on nuclear issues, the recent revelations indicate otherwise.

These secrets talks, surreptitious letters, leading to confidential and classified negotiations between Obama and the Islamist leaders of Iran, were initiated long before the current nuclear talks, right after the current president of Iran was elected to office.

According to several outlets, including the Daily Beast, the Blaze, and the Washington Times, the White House— under the leadership of President Obama— started lifting and easing its sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran right after President Hassan Rouhani took office.

According to The Daily Beast, Mark Dubowitz, the executive director of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a group that works closely with Congress and the White House regarding Iranian matters, stated that for “five months, since Rouhani’s election, the United States has offered Iran two major forms of sanctions relief.” In addition, Dubowitz pointed out that Iran has been selling oil illegally on the black market, leading to a large profitable amount of illegal revenues for Iran.

...

The secrecy of the Obama administration’s work with the Islamist leaders of Iran is brining, and will continue to bring, further severe repercussions for American national interest, which will just intensify as these clandestine communications networks continue to occur. Some of the negative backlash to this event is aimed at how the Obama administration is alienating its regional allies, particular Israel, through these acts. By these secret reliefs, the Obama administration is significantly assisting Iran in more quickly obtaining bomb-grade nuclear capabilities and weapons. The Obama administration is also breaking the number one rule in foreign service, in which United States prohibits its diplomat from contacting Iranian counterparts. Finally, and more fundamentally, this move has worked to embolden the Islamists’ position, weakening and damaging the American image.

The Secret Talks Between Obama and the Mullahs | FrontPage Magazine

 

[Bleipriester]

Iran is a sovereign country and not a bunch of Islamists. We have a bunch of Islamists in Syria that should be sanctioned.

 

[American_Jihad]

Iran is a sovereign country and not a bunch of Islamists. We have a bunch of Islamists in Syria that should be sanctioned.

A referendum in December 1979 approved a theocratic constitution.[87] Although both nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to overthrow the Shah, tens of thousands were executed by the Islamic regime afterward.

...

Following the Iran–Iraq War, President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his administration concentrated on a pragmatic pro-business policy of rebuilding and strengthening the economy without making any dramatic break with the ideology of the revolution. Rafsanjani served until 1997. Rafsanjani was succeeded by the moderate reformist Mohammad Khatami. However, Khatami is widely regarded as having been unsuccessful in achieving his goal of making Iran more free and democratic.[94]

Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


...

 

[Bleipriester]

Iran is a sovereign country and not a bunch of Islamists. We have a bunch of Islamists in Syria that should be sanctioned.

A referendum in December 1979 approved a theocratic constitution.[87] Although both nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to overthrow the Shah, tens of thousands were executed by the Islamic regime afterward.

...

Following the Iran–Iraq War, President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and his administration concentrated on a pragmatic pro-business policy of rebuilding and strengthening the economy without making any dramatic break with the ideology of the revolution. Rafsanjani served until 1997. Rafsanjani was succeeded by the moderate reformist Mohammad Khatami. However, Khatami is widely regarded as having been unsuccessful in achieving his goal of making Iran more free and democratic.[94]

Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


...

The Sha´s regime was a brutal dictatorship without freedom of opinion. The government cooperated with the White House, this is why the regime was tolerated.