# Obama Is Making Allies Nervous



## Annie (May 24, 2008)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...le3994513.ece?print=yes&randnum=1211656508015



> May 24, 2008
> David Miliband 'queries' Barack Obama's Iran policy
> Foreign Secretary David Miliband
> 
> ...



http://www.asharqalawsat.com/english/news.asp?section=2&id=12839



> Wrong Signals from Washington
> 
> 23/05/2008
> 
> ...


----------



## jillian (May 24, 2008)

asharq al awsat??/

I thought all Arabs couldn't WAIT for Obama to be president.


----------



## jreeves (May 24, 2008)

jillian said:


> asharq al awsat??/
> 
> I thought all Arabs couldn't WAIT for Obama to be president.



Hamas, not all arabs


----------



## Annie (May 24, 2008)

jillian said:


> asharq al awsat??/
> 
> I thought all Arabs couldn't WAIT for Obama to be president.



You're going to fault an Arab reporting source. Give me a break.


----------



## TheGoodShepherd (May 24, 2008)

I'd really love an explanation from the headline writer of this thread. 

Explain how these two articles caused you to write Obama "is" making allies nervous?


----------



## midcan5 (May 25, 2008)

Allies????  isn't there a enormous contradiction here? Since when did we care about allies, especially on the right?


----------



## jillian (May 25, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> You're going to fault an Arab reporting source. Give me a break.



Why? Have I ever used one? And did I fault the source? Or is it that I think the conclusion you draw is intentionally misleading?

But good to know you guys haven't lost the ole propaganda arm...


----------



## Dogger (May 25, 2008)

> This is what Obama said at a press conference: "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."
> 
> Obama: the more you know him, the more you gotta love him


This passage clearly differentiates Bush&#8217;s intransigent negotiation policy from that of his predecessors, and hopefully his successor. In normal times, a rational precondition would be that Iran is willing to accept the three Security Council resolutions if an agreement can be reached at negotiations. We have no reason to discuss terms if Iran refuses to even consider our objective. If Iran agrees to negotiate, we get together to discuss terms.

The Bush League, however, wants Iran to agree to accept the three Security Council resolutions in advance of negotiations. They have to show all of their cards before we even ante up. That is more than a precondition &#8211; that is a demand for capitulation. It requires Iran to give us everything we want before we give them anything. No sane person would agree to unconditional surrender in these circumstances, and no sane person would expect Iran to do that either.

Would you buy a house from someone who demanded that you agree to pay full market price  as a condition to negotiate?


----------



## rayboyusmc (May 25, 2008)

> British intelligence chiefs are understood to have identified Iranian nuclear proliferation as the second greatest security threat, behind Islamic terrorism but ahead of renewed aggression from Russia.



*And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?

The Iranian nuklar program has continued to advance.  How stupid is it to say we won't talk to our enemies and then it will all get better?  

Right, let's be like Bush and say, "Until you do what we want you to do we won't meet with you to discuss what we want you to do."  Frigging idiots. *


----------



## DeadCanDance (May 25, 2008)

I have the distinct impression that rightwingers are tossing around the word "preconditions!", without any thought to what it really means.  Its a word they have been repeatedly exposed from the rightwing media, and have been trained to chant it pavlovian dog style. 

What exactly do they mean "no preconditions"? Has Obama offered to give away something?  Are we supposed to never talk to them unless they agree beforehand, to give us what we want?  

And why is Bush calling Israel appeasers?  Israel is meeting with the terrorist state Syria, with no preconditions, in peace talks.   Is Israel appeassing?


----------



## José (May 25, 2008)

Israeli-Arab "peace talks" = the same endless blah-blah-blah that leads to nowhere we've been seeing for the last 60 years.


----------



## José (May 25, 2008)

Contrary to popular belief, Camp David is not a peace treaty at all. 

Just a non-aggression pact bought with american money.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 25, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> *And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?
> 
> The Iranian nuklar program has continued to advance.  How stupid is it to say we won't talk to our enemies and then it will all get better?
> 
> Right, let's be like Bush and say, "Until you do what we want you to do we won't meet with you to discuss what we want you to do."  Frigging idiots. *



Well except Bush has spoken repeatedly on the Issue, he left it to Europe to handle and the UN. We do not need to hold everyone's hand on every matter. As I recall we get bad mouthed for doing JUST that. But nice spin on that.


----------



## jreeves (May 25, 2008)

Dogger said:


> This passage clearly differentiates Bushs intransigent negotiation policy from that of his predecessors, and hopefully his successor. In normal times, a rational precondition would be that Iran is willing to accept the three Security Council resolutions if an agreement can be reached at negotiations. We have no reason to discuss terms if Iran refuses to even consider our objective. If Iran agrees to negotiate, we get together to discuss terms.
> 
> The Bush League, however, wants Iran to agree to accept the three Security Council resolutions in advance of negotiations. They have to show all of their cards before we even ante up. That is more than a precondition  that is a demand for capitulation. It requires Iran to give us everything we want before we give them anything. No sane person would agree to unconditional surrender in these circumstances, and no sane person would expect Iran to do that either.
> 
> Would you buy a house from someone who demanded that you agree to pay full market price  as a condition to negotiate?



Can you provide a link to said press conference?


----------



## jreeves (May 25, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> *And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?
> 
> The Iranian nuklar program has continued to advance.  How stupid is it to say we won't talk to our enemies and then it will all get better?
> 
> Right, let's be like Bush and say, "Until you do what we want you to do we won't meet with you to discuss what we want you to do."  Frigging idiots. *



Even people in your own party says Obama is wrong on Iran....but it is funny to watch you guys scramble to defend the undefendable.... 

http://newsblaze.com/story/2008052314130400004.pnw/newsblaze/PRNEWSWI/PRNewswire-Releases.html
At A July 2007 Debate, Obama Announced He Would Personally Meet With Leaders Of Iran,North Korea, Syria And Other Hostile Nations "Without Precondition." Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, inWashington or anywhere else, with the leaders ofIran,Syria,Venezuela,Cuba andNorth Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate,Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

Sen. Biden Said Obama Gave "Wrong Answer" On Negotiating Unconditionally With Hostile Foreign Leaders, But Then Falsely Claims Obama Has Changed His Position: Biden: "[Obama has] learned a hell of a lot. I think he has. What we're talking about here is that he has repeatedly since then said he would not negotiate unconditionally, meaning him sitting down, alone, right off the bat with these leaders. He's talked about his Secretary of State, his Secretary of Defense. Matter of a fact, the statements he use mirrors the statement the rest of us have been talking about. This is a fellow who I think shorthanded an answer that in fact was the wrong answer, in my view, saying I would within my first year, it implied he'd personally sit down with anybody who wanted to sit down with him. That's not what he meant. That's not what he has said since then for the last year or thereabout. And so I think he's fully capable of understanding of what's going." (ABC's "This Week," 5/18/08) 


Former Sen. Gary Hart On CNN's "Late Edition" Said Unconditionally Meeting With Leaders Of Rogue Nations "Doesn't Lead To Anything," Went On To Misstate Obama's Stated Position. CNN's Wolf Blitzer: "But the question he was specifically asked at one of the Presidential debates is, would you personally as President, be willing to sit down with these leaders, whether leaders ofNorth Korea orVenezuela orCuba orIran without pre-conditions, in your first year as President, that was the specific question, he said yes. He later expanded. He said that there would be preparations that would have to be done by lower-level officials. But he was saying without pre-conditions, he personally would be willing to do so." Gary Hart: "Well, depends on how you define pre-conditions. I've been in those debates, and everything gets compressed. I don't think Barack Obama or any other President is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that. It doesn't lead to anything. What you do is send diplomats and negotiators to explore areas of mutual interest. And if it does seem profitable, then you go to the heads of state. We did this with the Soviets throughout the Cold War. Richard Nixon did it with the Chinese. And the preparations led up to those discussions." (CNN's "Late Edition," 5/18/08)


DLC Chairman Harold Ford, Jr. On NBC's "Meet the Press": "I'll concede you cannot meet with foreign leaders - with terrorists rather - and those that lead rogue nations without some conditions." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 5/18/08)


----------



## Dogger (May 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Can you provide a link to said press conference?



The link in the quote box works just fine.


----------



## Annie (May 25, 2008)

Dogger said:


> This passage clearly differentiates Bushs intransigent negotiation policy from that of his predecessors, and hopefully his successor. In normal times, a rational precondition would be that Iran is willing to accept the three Security Council resolutions if an agreement can be reached at negotiations. We have no reason to discuss terms if Iran refuses to even consider our objective. If Iran agrees to negotiate, we get together to discuss terms.
> 
> The Bush League, however, wants Iran to agree to accept the three Security Council resolutions in advance of negotiations. They have to show all of their cards before we even ante up. That is more than a precondition  that is a demand for capitulation. It requires Iran to give us everything we want before we give them anything. No sane person would agree to unconditional surrender in these circumstances, and no sane person would expect Iran to do that either.
> 
> Would you buy a house from someone who demanded that you agree to pay full market price  as a condition to negotiate?



Actually it's not just 'Bush', also European nations and the UN that have been insisting on the preconditions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5036082.stm


----------



## jreeves (May 25, 2008)

Dogger said:


> The link in the quote box works just fine.



Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, inWashington or anywhere else, with the leaders ofIran,Syria,Venezuela,Cuba andNorth Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate,Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)


I guess when answered that he would meet without preconditions he was taken out of context, once again?


----------



## Dogger (May 25, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Actually it's not just 'Bush', also European nations and the UN that have been insisting on the preconditions.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5036082.stm



From your source:





> On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said "as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table".
> 
> Ms Rice urged Iran to consider the new proposals
> 
> ...



Iran needs to put suspension of enrichment and reprocessing on the table; that's a proper precondition. The problem is that Rice and Bush want them to surrender on the issue in advance without knowing what they get in return. That's the distinction Obama was talking about in my earlier post.


----------



## Annie (May 25, 2008)

Dogger said:


> From your source:
> 
> Iran needs to put suspension of enrichment and reprocessing on the table; that's a proper precondition. The problem is that Rice and Bush want them to surrender on the issue in advance without knowing what they get in return. That's the distinction Obama was talking about in my earlier post.



and that's what Iran is failing to do. It's why the UN put sanctions in place, when the Europeans couldn't get them to do the minimum, same even with Russia and China, which is why the resolution for sanctions happened.


----------



## DeadCanDance (May 25, 2008)

Please, please rightwingers.  Stop being such hypocritical, hyper partisan, bush worshippers. 

Your president offered charter axis of evil member North Korea oil, security guarantees, and other carrots, in order to try to coerce them from continuing their nuclear activities.  North Korea was never required to immediately suspend their nuclear activities _before_ we would sit down and talk to them.  

Please stop being such hypcritical tools.  You're either lying your asses off and aren't aware you're doing it.  Or, you are hypocritical idiots.  I don't know which is worse.


----------



## Annie (May 25, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Please, please rightwingers.  Stop being such hypocritical, hyper partisan, bush worshippers.
> 
> Your president offered charter axis of evil member North Korea oil, security guarantees, and other carrots, in order to try to coerce them from continuing their nuclear activities.  North Korea was never required to immediately suspend their nuclear activities _before_ we would sit down and talk to them.
> 
> Please stop being such hypcritical tools.  You're either lying your asses off and aren't aware you're doing it.  Or, you are hypocritical idiots.  I don't know which is worse.



Um, you'll find North Korea and condemnation of Bush's handling by some said 'right wingers.'


----------



## DeadCanDance (May 25, 2008)

Yep, Bush worshippers have been lying their asses off about "no preconditions!!!" bullshit. 




> *U.S. has no preconditions on dialogue with N. Korea: Colin Powell*
> 
> July 2001
> 
> ...


----------



## DeadCanDance (May 25, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> Um, you'll find North Korea and condemnation of Bush's handling by some said 'right wingers.'



It's obvious you have no principled stand on this.  I've never seen you put up threads denouncing the bush admin, for seven years, negotiating with north korea without preconditions.    

Your views on foreign policy depend on whether the dude as a D or an R next to his name. 

As for me?  I'm consistent.  I have at least a vestige of principles.  I'm not a hyper partisan like you.  I think Bush was right for negotiating with north korea without defined preconditions, and I don't think its the end of the world for Obama to suggest the same with respect to Iran. 

Nor do I think Israel is appeasing Syria for negotiating with them without preconditions.


----------



## Annie (May 25, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> It's obvious you have no principled stand on this.  I've never seen you put up threads denouncing the bush admin, for seven years, negotiating with north korea without preconditions.
> 
> Your views on foreign policy depend on whether the dude as a D or an R next to his name.
> 
> ...



Right. http://usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=494781&highlight=north+korea+negotiations#post494781

Actually I just searched for mine, you'd fine more by others. As for Powell, he was part of what we were criticizing, the administration's handling of North Korea and yes indeedy, Saudi Arabia.


----------



## Annie (May 25, 2008)

The idea that we haven't been 'talking' to Iran is ridiculous on it's face:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/w...an+europe+talks&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=login



> December 1, 2007
> As Talks With Europe End, Iran Gives No Sign of Concession on Nuclear Program
> By JOHN F. BURNS
> 
> ...


----------



## Dogger (May 25, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Question: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, inWashington or anywhere else, with the leaders ofIran,Syria,Venezuela,Cuba andNorth Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... Obama: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate,Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)
> 
> I guess when answered that he would meet without preconditions he was taken out of context, once again?


Although "precondition" was in the question, it wasn't addressed in the answer. You don't have time in debate to address every nuance of a question, and it appears that Obama focused on the broader policy disagreement rather than the specifics regarding which types of preconditions are reasonable.

Here's his whole answer (in context):
OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, Ronald Reagan and Democratic presidents like JFK constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil empire. And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them and they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country, but we had the obligation to find areas where we can potentially move forward.

And I think that it is a disgrace that we have not spoken to them. We've been talking about Iraq -- one of the first things that I would do in terms of moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria because they're going to have responsibilities if Iraq collapses.

They have been acting irresponsibly up until this point. But if we tell them that we are not going to be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that they are going to have to carry some weight, in terms of stabilizing the region.
Transcript​


----------



## JimH52 (May 25, 2008)

You think they are more nervous than when "kill them!" bush begins speaking his tiny mind?


----------



## Annie (May 25, 2008)

Dogger said:


> Although "precondition" was in the question, it wasn't addressed in the answer. You don't have time in debate to address every nuance of a question, and it appears that Obama focused on the broader policy disagreement rather than the specifics regarding which types of preconditions are reasonable.
> 
> Here's his whole answer (in context):
> OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.
> ...



No misquote or misspeak, still up on his site. If anything it's been underspun:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran



> *Diplomacy*: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, *direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions.* Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.


----------



## Dogger (May 25, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> No misquote or misspeak, still up on his site. If anything it's been underspun:
> 
> http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#iran



That does seem difficult to reconcile with other policy statements by Obama, unless he is using the term &#8220;preconditions&#8221; the way Bush has defined it, meaning a concession in advance on the primary object of the negotiation. Operating on a Bush definition, "No" is the intelligent answer. I&#8217;ve been using the term with its traditional meaning, so that it refers to setting the agenda and topics for discussion, but it seems that Obama refers to that as preparations. The critical point is not the quibble over semantics, but rather the important policy shift. Obama has made it clear he was rejecting Administration policy, and post-debate discussion has clarified the he is fine with reasonable, normal preconditions or preparations. Let&#8217;s hope the elimination of Bush League intransigence prompts Iran to stop obstructing negotiations as well.


----------



## Yurt (May 25, 2008)

=





> Dogger;692985]This passage clearly differentiates Bushs intransigent negotiation policy from that of his predecessors, and hopefully his successor. In *normal times*, a rational precondition would be that Iran is willing to accept the three Security Council resolutions if an agreement can be reached at negotiations. We have no reason to discuss terms if Iran refuses to even consider our objective. If Iran agrees to negotiate, we get together to discuss terms.



what exactly are 'normal times'?  1979?  1989?  21009?  156 BC?  




> The Bush League, however, wants Iran to agree to accept the three Security Council resolutions in advance of negotiations. They have to show all of their cards before we even ante up.



you think our lives are chips on a poker table?  bad analogy.  



> That is more than a precondition  that is a demand for capitulation. It requires Iran to give us everything we want before we give them anything. No sane person would agree to unconditional surrender in these circumstances, and no sane person would expect Iran to do that either.



have you ever been inolved in negotiations at the same level?  my guess is no.  neither have I, so i am not better than you, however, i knew someone with the UN in the early 90's and remember him telling me that international negotiations are not like you and i bargaining.  




> Would you buy a house from someone who demanded that you agree to pay full market price  as a condition to negotiate?



you obviously do not live in southern california, including the central coast, or any other desirable area that people buy real estate in.


----------



## Swamp Fox (May 25, 2008)

midcan5 said:


> Allies????  isn't there a enormous contradiction here? Since when did we care about allies, especially on the right?



We care about them, when they act like allies.  When they stab us in the back for their own selfish ends (France, Germany, Russia) then they can go fuck themselves.


----------



## jreeves (May 26, 2008)

Dogger said:


> That does seem difficult to reconcile with other policy statements by Obama, unless he is using the term preconditions the way Bush has defined it, meaning a concession in advance on the primary object of the negotiation. Operating on a Bush definition, "No" is the intelligent answer. Ive been using the term with its traditional meaning, so that it refers to setting the agenda and topics for discussion, but it seems that Obama refers to that as preparations. The critical point is not the quibble over semantics, but rather the important policy shift. Obama has made it clear he was rejecting Administration policy, and post-debate discussion has clarified the he is fine with reasonable, normal preconditions or preparations. Lets hope the elimination of Bush League intransigence prompts Iran to stop obstructing negotiations as well.



Sure he backtracked and included preparations after members from his own party questioned him. But this whole reversal shows his complete lack of experience and what a blunder it would to elect him President. 

But watch his own statements.....

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIlhTVyZfYY[/ame]


----------



## Ninja (May 26, 2008)

jillian said:


> I thought *all* Arabs couldn't WAIT for Obama to be president









 

Love ya girl!


----------



## Annie (May 26, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Sure he backtracked and included preparations after members from his own party questioned him. But this whole reversal shows his complete lack of experience and what a blunder it would to elect him President.
> 
> But watch his own statements.....
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIlhTVyZfYY



Very true or read his own website position on Iran under 'Issues'. 

Perhaps that is what baffles me more than anything, how so many can just project what they want Obama to 'be like', ignoring the evidence of what his beliefs are. Doesn't matter if speaking of country, church, etc., the evidence is there, they just don't believe it. 

With McCain, if I vote for him, I know where his stands differ for me. I happen to agree with his foreign policy philosophy and that will probably be enough for me to vote for him. I agree with him that Washington should be more civil, at least 'after hours' and that the politicians should have a modicum of decency. I agree with him on pork in legislation and his past votes on taxes.

I disagree on some of his proposals that would result in tax hikes in the future. I disagree with his latest change in global warming. I most strongly disagree with him on illegal immigration.


----------



## Nate Peele (May 26, 2008)

This is good news.  I was not aware that we had allies left.


----------



## jillian (May 26, 2008)

snowman said:


> Love ya girl!



yeah, yeaha, yeah, i like the pic. was being sarcastic, though. I think this whole issue is silly given it sounds like the same garbage that was spewed during the run up to the Iraq invasion. And, besides, it's not like we've cared about what our allies were concerned about for the last 7 1/2 years. 

good to see ya!


----------



## jreeves (May 27, 2008)

jillian said:


> yeah, yeaha, yeah, i like the pic. was being sarcastic, though. I think this whole issue is silly given it sounds like the same garbage that was spewed during the run up to the Iraq invasion. And, besides, it's not like we've cared about what our allies were concerned about for the last 7 1/2 years.
> 
> good to see ya!



So our allies mean nothing now, can the left please makeup their mind? When we have Republican President, our allies should be held in high regard. When a Democrat candidate's policies would alienate our allies, then it's, well we weren't concerned for our allies in the past 7 1/2 years. Don't you see the hypocrisy?


----------



## Jeepers (May 28, 2008)

DeadCanDance said:


> Yep, Bush worshippers have been lying their asses off about "no preconditions!!!" bullshit.


LOL.. rumour has it that bush has a delegation heading to Sudan to talk to terrorists with no preconditions...

btw... isnt the timesonline a ruppert murdoch news organization... this whole thread is started with a quote from the likes of fox news..


----------



## Working Man (May 28, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> *And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?
> 
> Could they be, the very same who live in the shadows of illegal settlements, who could care less as to what is happening to the US for its blind support???
> 
> ...


----------



## jreeves (May 28, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> LOL.. rumour has it that bush has a delegation heading to Sudan to talk to terrorists with no preconditions...
> 
> btw... isnt the timesonline a ruppert murdoch news organization... this whole thread is started with a quote from the likes of fox news..



Rumor has it, you have a brain but you've proved them all wrong. 

Oh ok, it's a *quote* but somehow that shows news bias .


----------



## jreeves (May 28, 2008)

Working Man said:


> rayboyusmc said:
> 
> 
> > *And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?
> ...


----------



## Annie (May 28, 2008)

rayboyusmc said:


> *And the current Misadminstration's approach of not talking at all has led to what?
> 
> The Iranian nuklar program has continued to advance.  How stupid is it to say we won't talk to our enemies and then it will all get better?
> 
> Right, let's be like Bush and say, "Until you do what we want you to do we won't meet with you to discuss what we want you to do."  Frigging idiots. *



How about a promise to make all alright and a teddy bear for you to hold onto during the night?


----------



## jillian (May 28, 2008)

Kathianne said:


> How about a promise to make all alright and a teddy bear for you to hold onto during the night?



Right...because that's the only alternative to thumping around like the imbecile who's the current occupant of the white house.... and his adherants.


----------



## Jeepers (May 28, 2008)

jreeves said:


> Working Man said:
> 
> 
> > So we should just ignore threats, of course I should have figured they will just magically disappear...
> ...


----------



## jreeves (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> jreeves said:
> 
> 
> > Ye have little faith in Iran's poltical system, granted *I think *we assasinted their popular long running democratically elected leader so that we could instill a family of tyrants... the majority of the Iranian middle and upper classes cannot stand ahmedenajad... but, that all changes when our resident cowboy in cheif opens his big fucking mouth...adversity in their situation breeds unlike alliances...
> ...


----------



## Jeepers (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> Ye have little faith in Iran's poltical system, granted *I think *we assasinted their popular long running democratically elected leader so that we could instill a family of tyrants... the majority of the Iranian middle and upper classes cannot stand ahmedenajad... but, that all changes when our resident cowboy in cheif opens his big fucking mouth...adversity in their situation breeds unlike alliances...





jreeves said:


> This is the fallacy with your whole argument.



??? .. I said I think cause I wasnt sure if he was toppled or killed...

"Great Britain had returned the Shah in 1931. The Shah signed a deal selling Iranian oil to the Anglo Persian Oil Company, which today is called British Petroleum. When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to nationalize Iran's oil assets, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy. The US concerned about Mossadegh now seeking help from local superpower, the Soviet Union, regarding the case against Great Britain agreed in restoring the pro-western Shah to power. In the summer of 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 arranged a coup in Tehran. The Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown successfully. Mossadegh spent the rest of his life on his country estate and Iran remained a strong Cold War ally of the West. After more than 20 years of the Shah's rule, there was a bloody revolution in 1979 after which Iran became the Islamic Republic it is today.


----------



## jreeves (May 29, 2008)

Jeepers said:


> ??? .. I said I think cause I wasnt sure if he was toppled or killed...
> 
> "Great Britain had returned the Shah in 1931. The Shah signed a deal selling Iranian oil to the Anglo Persian Oil Company, which today is called British Petroleum. When the first democratically elected parliament and prime minister in Iran took power in 1950 they planned to nationalize Iran's oil assets, violating the still running oil contract with British Petroleum. The British Government followed to court in Belgium's International Court and lost the case against Iran's new government. Great Britain reacted by blockading the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, halting Iran's trade and economy. The US concerned about Mossadegh now seeking help from local superpower, the Soviet Union, regarding the case against Great Britain agreed in restoring the pro-western Shah to power. In the summer of 1953, the CIA and Britain's MI6 arranged a coup in Tehran. The Iranian prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh was overthrown successfully. Mossadegh spent the rest of his life on his country estate and Iran remained a strong Cold War ally of the West. After more than 20 years of the Shah's rule, there was a bloody revolution in 1979 after which Iran became the Islamic Republic it is today.



Could you provide a link to that article?


----------



## Jeepers (May 31, 2008)

All the Shah's Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Wow (Jul 22, 2008)

Nate Peele said:


> This is good news.  I was not aware that we had allies left.


We still have allies that have not been intimidated by terrorism.

With Americans giving the world $2 Trillion of welfare each year (Buying exports), the US will always have allies, as long as Obama stays in Chicago.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2008)

We've been intimidated by terrorism. Sad, but true. Otherwise we'd never have invaded Iraq.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> We've been intimidated by terrorism. Sad, but true. Otherwise we'd never have invaded Iraq.



There's a new one--we invaded Iraq because we were intimidated by terrorism.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> There's a new one--we invaded Iraq because we were intimidated by terrorism.



I don't know if that's why the Bush administration did it. But that's why we sat back and let them.


----------



## Wow (Jul 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> We've been intimidated by terrorism. Sad, but true. Otherwise we'd never have invaded Iraq.


Allow me to help you.

Terrorism: is "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of *coercion*. Most common definitions of terrorism include only those acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for an ideological goal. Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coercion: is the practice of compelling a person or manipulating them to behave in an involuntary way (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation or some other form of pressure or force.
Coercion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, the Al Qaida did not want Americans to attack them. That's why Democrat politicians and Osama Bin Laden use the same verbal attacks on Americans to discourage war on terrorism.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> I don't know if that's why the Bush administration did it. But that's why we sat back and let them.



"we" ?  Who the hell are you talking about ?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2008)

Not sure why you gave me the definition of terrorism. It just furthers my point.

And of course AQ didn't want us to attack them. I imagine us attacking Iraq suited their plans to a t.


----------



## Wow (Jul 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Not sure why you gave me the definition of terrorism. It just furthers my point.
> 
> And of course AQ didn't want us to attack them. I imagine us attacking Iraq suited their plans to a t.


*And of course AQ didn't want us to attack them.*
Exactly, that proves their terror attacks on 911 did NOT intimidate Americans, as the Al Qaida had hoped!
It seems rather naive on the Al Qaida's part to think Americans would not fight back but then many Americans display fear and being intimidated. America's weakness is the Al Qaida's strength!


----------



## editec (Jul 22, 2008)

ravi said:


> i Don't Know If That's Why The Bush Administration Did It. But That's Why We Sat Back And Let Them.


 Yes!


----------



## editec (Jul 22, 2008)

Wow said:


> *And of course AQ didn't want us to attack them.*
> Exactly, that proves their terror attacks on 911 did NOT intimidate Americans, as the Al Qaida had hoped!
> *It seems rather naive on the Al Qaida's part to think Americans would not fight back*


 

Yes, also.


----------



## Wow (Jul 22, 2008)

editec said:


> Yes, also.


You left out this part that points out why Americans were attacked on 911.

*That's why Democrat politicians and Osama Bin Laden use the same verbal attacks on Americans to discourage war on terrorism.*

Democrats tell the Al Qaida, "Americans will be intimidated by terror attacks"


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Not sure why you gave me the definition of terrorism. It just furthers my point.
> 
> And of course AQ didn't want us to attack them. I imagine us attacking Iraq suited their plans to a t.



nah, they would have been just as happy if we would have pulled out of the Middle east totally and stopped all support of Israel. 

Of course that was not going to happen.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 22, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> nah, they would have been just as happy if we would have pulled out of the Middle east totally and stopped all support of Israel.
> 
> Of course that was not going to happen.



Even if we did that, which I in no way would support...they'd still hate us. It's in their little book...destroy all infidels.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 22, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Even if we did that, which I in no way would support...they'd still hate us. It's in their little book...destroy all infidels.



Well, I am happy to see you say that. A lot of people would not agree, but I sure as hell do.


----------



## Wow (Jul 23, 2008)

When Bubba was President, Democrats defended the funding of Israel by saying "They are our only allies in the Mideast and we can learn from them"
Bubba had a Jewish Secy of State, Madeline Albright.
Democrats and the Liberal media ran around calling Americans "Anti-Semites" that opposed anything concerning Israel or the Jewish.

Now, Democrats want another Jewish Holocaust in opposition to the war against terrorism. Muslims have offered more money to Liberals than the Jewish. 
Highest bidder wins!


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 26, 2008)

I think that this is one of the reasons while Al-Quaida will never succeed.
Their goals are way to far fetched.
Terrorist movements frequently achieve things like "independence for province X", or  "a change of gouverment for nation Y" Al Quaida however is calling for the destruction of a nuclear power, overthrows in some 8-10 nations, they are messing with 3 world powers (US Russia China), in short, no fucking way they will ever win.


----------

