Optimist: Wish I Could Be One

[PoliticalChic]

Why did Obama try to cut off aid at all?

Have you studied Libya, where Bush had Gaddafi give up his nuclear weapons?

Remember when I suggested that you open your eyes?

Still a good suggestion.

A better suggestion might be for you, yourself, to admit that I just bested you at your own game - I C&P'd you into tapping out.

The review was based upon an investigation into crimes against Egypt's citizens and it was absolutely the correct thing to do.

"If the military continues its repressive tactics, arresting democracy activists and does not hold free and fair elections, the certifications will not be possible and U.S. aid will be cut off," Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate subcommittee responsible for the aid, said in a speech on the chamber floor on Tuesday.

We were sending military aid to Egypt and Egypt was wiping out its citizens left and right.

You would not have done the same?

Interesting....

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

Mark this down:
His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

Mark this down:
His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

Does Obama have the authority to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes?

I've been all over everyone of these stupid CONTRIVED crap issues - sanctions were lifted, because Iran was in compliance. I don't even see were it is necessary to bring this up as it is common knowledge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

Mark this down:
His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

Does Obama have the authority to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes?

I've been all over everyone of these stupid CONTRIVED crap issues - sanctions were lifted, because Iran was in compliance. I don't even see were it is necessary to bring this up as it is common knowledge.

You are either a fool or a reliable Democrat voter....



...wait....did I say 'either'????

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

You are either a fool or a reliable Democrat voter....

...wait....did I say 'either'????

I am but a humble servant of the truth, me lady; one that rides the running boards of this streetcar, without so much as a haversack for my belongings.


Time, perhaps, for me to step off....

/kisses her hand. x

 

[PoliticalChic]

You are either a fool or a reliable Democrat voter....

...wait....did I say 'either'????

I am but a humble servant of the truth, me lady; one that rides the running boards of this streetcar, without so much as a haversack for my belongings.


Time, perhaps, for me to step off....

/kisses her hand. x

`


It's really difficult to dislike you, Cabbie....but don't think I won't put my best efforts into trying.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

4. But, since you are begging for my analysis of Jimmy Carter.....

a. "When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter,the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years.Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108

A couple of comments here. Obviously, you are too young to remember the Iranian Revolution. Having watched it in real time, there was no way Carter could have "Saved" the Shah.

Also, Iran was invaded by Iraq. What were they supposed to do?

President Carter helped cause the problems the Shah' of Iran was having by making demands upon him, the release of "political prisoners" who were radical fundamentalists and among them communists and terrorists. Carter pushed to disband military tribunals for civil courts stirring anti-government rallies, and when the Shah couldn't meet the demands of the United States, stopped $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Carter started the unrest in Iran which led to the capture of Americans that turned into a 444 day standoff until Reagan.

 

[JoeB131]

President Carter helped cause the problems the Shah' of Iran was having by making demands upon him, the release of "political prisoners" who were radical fundamentalists and among them communists and terrorists. Carter pushed to disband military tribunals for civil courts stirring anti-government rallies, and when the Shah couldn't meet the demands of the United States, stopped $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Carter started the unrest in Iran which led to the capture of Americans that turned into a 444 day standoff until Reagan.

The Shah did not fall because of Jimmy Carter.

The Shah fell because his people hated him with a fucking passion.

And we could have ended the Hostage Crisis on day one if we gave that son of a bitch back to get what was coming to him.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

President Carter helped cause the problems the Shah' of Iran was having by making demands upon him, the release of "political prisoners" who were radical fundamentalists and among them communists and terrorists. Carter pushed to disband military tribunals for civil courts stirring anti-government rallies, and when the Shah couldn't meet the demands of the United States, stopped $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Carter started the unrest in Iran which led to the capture of Americans that turned into a 444 day standoff until Reagan.

The Shah did not fall because of Jimmy Carter.

The Shah fell because his people hated him with a fucking passion.

And we could have ended the Hostage Crisis on day one if we gave that son of a bitch back to get what was coming to him.

His people hated him because President Carter's demands placed on the Shah under the banner of "human rights". Carter later backed that up with the removal of $4 million a year in funding to Iran which in turn added to the hatred of the United States and the Shah who was viewed as trying to please the west. This is why the American embassy was overrun and hostages taken. It doesn't take an Einstein to connect the dots of the events as they transpired. Why else was there a sudden uprising against Americans if not due to the sudden stop impact of financial aid into Iran, which led to them taking their anger out against the shah and the United States? You can't be that ignorant.

 

[SmedlyButler]

If you want to become an optimist instead of a habitual purveyor of phantasmagorical gloom and doom there's a very simple route. Become a liberal. We liberals are confident that our ideology will eventually triumph and the whole World will be bathed in the inspiring light of our superior knowledge and understanding.

Say, did you see my post in the "most annoying poster" thread? I hope so otherwise it's intent was unfulfilled.

 

[JoeB131]

His people hated him because President Carter's demands placed on the Shah under the banner of "human rights". Carter later backed that up with the removal of $4 million a year in funding to Iran which in turn added to the hatred of the United States and the Shah who was viewed as trying to please the west. This is why the American embassy was overrun and hostages taken. It doesn't take an Einstein to connect the dots of the events as they transpired. Why else was there a sudden uprising against Americans if not due to the sudden stop impact of financial aid into Iran, which led to them taking their anger out against the shah and the United States? You can't be that ignorant.

Iran was a rich Petro-state. 4 Million in 1979 dollars wasn't going to make that much of a difference.

The Iranian people hated this asshole because he routinely killed and tortured political opponents.

The reason why Students took over the Embassy was because Carter allowed the Shah into the US for Cancer Treatment, but the Iranians suspected that he was meeting with the CIA for another coup. This wasn't paranoia, because the CIA had done the Same thing when the shah was overthrown in 1953.

Now, sadly, because Ike, JFK, LBJ, Nixon and Ford supported the shah, and the Shah killed anyone who said "Democracy" out loud, the only place that opposition could gel around was the Shi'ite clergy, which is exactly what happened.

 

[Foxfyre]

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

Mark this down:
His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

Does Obama have the authority to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes?

I've been all over everyone of these stupid CONTRIVED crap issues - sanctions were lifted, because Iran was in compliance. I don't even see were it is necessary to bring this up as it is common knowledge.

Thank you for putting this in a normal font--I find your posts in the huge black type impossible to read, or at least I don't wish to read them.

But no, Obama does not have the authority to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. But he does have the bully pulpit that would give him huge clout to influence, including gaining cooperation of other nations. It is a bully pulpit he simply seems to have little ability to use because he has demonstrated an inability to lead, to inspire, to be visionary, or to be right. Is there any person left on the planet who looks forward to his speeches to find out what a national leader will have to say? Or do we expect a whole bunch of high-minded sounding words that say absolutely nothing and commit him to nothing while blaming all the nation's troubles on somebody else?

Not only has he failed to lead decisively and effectively, he shows his true stripes with his track record on Iran that has been nothing but mostly self-serving, ambiguous, useless, and ineffective and as changeable as expediency suggests as has been his record on most things:

Obama in 2004:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told "the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, '[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?'

"He added, '[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if 'violent Islamic extremists' were to 'take over'," Joshua Frank wrote January 22, 2005, for Antiwar.com.[1]

Obama in 2007: . . . He has pledged that Iran will not be allowed to threaten Israel through its nuclear program, but he is vague on exactly what he would do to stop it," . . .
Barack Obama U.S. presidential election 2008 On war with Iran - OpenCongress Wiki​

Obama in 2008:

After Candidate Obama consistently criticized the Bush administration on its inaction on a nuclear Iran and saying that a nuclear Iran cannot happen, "At his first press conference in his new status, US President-elect Barack Obama hit out at the Iranian government today, accusing them of “development of a nuclear weapon” and vowing “to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.”
Obama Iran 8217 s Pursuit of Nukes Is Unacceptable -- News from Antiwar.com

Obama pre-election 2012:

. . . In his annual address to the UN General Assembly in September, Obama repeated that the United States wants to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through diplomacy, but that the time for doing so is not unlimited. He also noted that the goal remains to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, not containment after the fact.

In the third and final presidential debate held on October 22, the president denied a report published in the New York Times that the United States would engage in bilateral talks with Iran about its nuclear program after the election. . . .
http://www.cfr.org/iran/candidates-us-iran-policy/p26798​

Obama last November, 2013:

“On the eve of a new round of talks between world powers and Iran, a senior Obama administration official said Wednesday that the United States was prepared to offer Iran limited relief from economic sanctions if Tehran agreed to halt its nuclear program and reversed part of it.” The planned “relief” is to last six months, much longer than some experts believe is needed for Iran to go nuclear.

So the Iranians, if Obama gets his way, will have achieved what they want — relief from sanctions and months to complete what some experts say will take only weeks: the achievement of a nuclear weapons capability. The Times buried the lede, but did allow, “Time is of the essence, nuclear experts have said, because Iran’s nuclear program has advanced to the point where it could quickly produce enough enriched material for a nuclear device.” A conservative foreign policy expert who has warned against the impending nuclear breakout by Iran retorted, “So the Obama administration is conspiring with Tehran to stop Congress from imposing sanctions on Iran.” . . .
Obama to allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program - The Washington Post​

And just this week Obama announced re negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program: Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States have agreed to extend negotiations until Nov. 24 which of course is well past the U.S. 2014 elections. Just about everything that is a political problem for Obama get pushed past the next election.

Would you care to lay odds that he will be able to continue to move the goal posts until he is safely out of office? That way he never has to lead, doesn't have to accept responsibility for anything, doesn't believe he can be blamed for anything.

Which is why it is pretty difficult to be optimistic with this President.

 

[Moonglow]

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

Mark this down:
His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

Does Obama have the authority to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes?

I've been all over everyone of these stupid CONTRIVED crap issues - sanctions were lifted, because Iran was in compliance. I don't even see were it is necessary to bring this up as it is common knowledge.

You are either a fool or a reliable Democrat voter....



...wait....did I say 'either'????

Wait, are you blind??

The United States has leveled new sanctions on several individuals and entities found to be abetting Iran’s missile and nuclear programs, as well as its efforts to evade sanctions and support terrorism, the White House and Treasury Department announced early Friday.

US Hits Iranian Terrorism Backers Nuclear Enablers with New Sanctions Washington Free Beacon

 

[Moonglow]

There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See

Mark this down:
His two most significant foreign policy achievements will be a nuclear Iran, and the restoration of the Islamic caliphate.

Does Obama have the authority to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes?

I've been all over everyone of these stupid CONTRIVED crap issues - sanctions were lifted, because Iran was in compliance. I don't even see were it is necessary to bring this up as it is common knowledge.

Thank you for putting this in a normal font--I find your posts in the huge black type impossible to read, or at least I don't wish to read them.

But no, Obama does not have the authority to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. But he does have the bully pulpit that would give him huge clout to influence, including gaining cooperation of other nations. It is a bully pulpit he simply seems to have little ability to use because he has demonstrated an inability to lead, to inspire, to be visionary, or to be right. Is there any person left on the planet who looks forward to his speeches to find out what a national leader will have to say? Or do we expect a whole bunch of high-minded sounding words that say absolutely nothing and commit him to nothing while blaming all the nation's troubles on somebody else?

Not only has he failed to lead decisively and effectively, he shows his true stripes with his track record on Iran that has been nothing but mostly self-serving, ambiguous, useless, and ineffective and as changeable as expediency suggests as has been his record on most things:

Obama in 2004:

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told "the Chicago Tribune on September 26, 2004, '[T]he big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures [to stop its nuclear program], including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point ... if any, are we going to take military action?'

"He added, '[L]aunching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in' given the ongoing war in Iraq. 'On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse.' Obama went on to argue that military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if 'violent Islamic extremists' were to 'take over'," Joshua Frank wrote January 22, 2005, for Antiwar.com.[1]

Obama in 2007: . . . He has pledged that Iran will not be allowed to threaten Israel through its nuclear program, but he is vague on exactly what he would do to stop it," . . .
Barack Obama U.S. presidential election 2008 On war with Iran - OpenCongress Wiki​

Obama in 2008:

After Candidate Obama consistently criticized the Bush administration on its inaction on a nuclear Iran and saying that a nuclear Iran cannot happen, "At his first press conference in his new status, US President-elect Barack Obama hit out at the Iranian government today, accusing them of “development of a nuclear weapon” and vowing “to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening.”
Obama Iran 8217 s Pursuit of Nukes Is Unacceptable -- News from Antiwar.com

Obama pre-election 2012:

. . . In his annual address to the UN General Assembly in September, Obama repeated that the United States wants to resolve Iran's nuclear issue through diplomacy, but that the time for doing so is not unlimited. He also noted that the goal remains to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, not containment after the fact.

In the third and final presidential debate held on October 22, the president denied a report published in the New York Times that the United States would engage in bilateral talks with Iran about its nuclear program after the election. . . .
http://www.cfr.org/iran/candidates-us-iran-policy/p26798​

Obama last November, 2013:

“On the eve of a new round of talks between world powers and Iran, a senior Obama administration official said Wednesday that the United States was prepared to offer Iran limited relief from economic sanctions if Tehran agreed to halt its nuclear program and reversed part of it.” The planned “relief” is to last six months, much longer than some experts believe is needed for Iran to go nuclear.

So the Iranians, if Obama gets his way, will have achieved what they want — relief from sanctions and months to complete what some experts say will take only weeks: the achievement of a nuclear weapons capability. The Times buried the lede, but did allow, “Time is of the essence, nuclear experts have said, because Iran’s nuclear program has advanced to the point where it could quickly produce enough enriched material for a nuclear device.” A conservative foreign policy expert who has warned against the impending nuclear breakout by Iran retorted, “So the Obama administration is conspiring with Tehran to stop Congress from imposing sanctions on Iran.” . . .
Obama to allow Iran to keep its nuclear weapons program - The Washington Post​

And just this week Obama announced re negotiations with Iran on its nuclear program: Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States have agreed to extend negotiations until Nov. 24 which of course is well past the U.S. 2014 elections. Just about everything that is a political problem for Obama get pushed past the next election.

Would you care to lay odds that he will be able to continue to move the goal posts until he is safely out of office? That way he never has to lead, doesn't have to accept responsibility for anything, doesn't believe he can be blamed for anything.

Which is why it is pretty difficult to be optimistic with this President.

I'd say you are just biased...

 

[Foxfyre]

member: 6847
I'd say you are just biased...

I'm sure that is what you would probably say. But if you can discredit what I posted, go for it. Otherwise people will think you are just posting out of personal bias, yes?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

If you want to become an optimist instead of a habitual purveyor of phantasmagorical gloom and doom there's a very simple route. Become a liberal. We liberals are confident that our ideology will eventually triumph and the whole World will be bathed in the inspiring light of our superior knowledge and understanding.

Say, did you see my post in the "most annoying poster" thread? I hope so otherwise it's intent was unfulfilled.

I always found it interesting when liberals in Congress hold back with regard to imposing their political views on our nation, when faced with an upcoming reelection. Don't these liberal politicians share in the confidence of your statement?

Why IS president Obama putting on hold his views and policies towards illegal immigrants until after the Congressional election?

Why DID Speaker Pelosi lose her seat if our nation welcomed a national liberal view of Health Care, such as the one found under Obamacare? Was our nation not satisfied with how the Democrats handled the economy and health care?

 

[SmedlyButler]

If you want to become an optimist instead of a habitual purveyor of phantasmagorical gloom and doom there's a very simple route. Become a liberal. We liberals are confident that our ideology will eventually triumph and the whole World will be bathed in the inspiring light of our superior knowledge and understanding.

Say, did you see my post in the "most annoying poster" thread? I hope so otherwise it's intent was unfulfilled.

I always found it interesting when liberals in Congress hold back with regard to imposing their political views on our nation, when faced with an upcoming reelection. Don't these liberal politicians share in the confidence of your statement?

Why IS president Obama putting on hold his views and policies towards illegal immigrants until after the Congressional election?

Why DID Speaker Pelosi lose her seat if our nation welcomed a national liberal view of Health Care, such as the one found under Obamacare? Was our nation not satisfied with how the Democrats handled the economy and health care?

And why is the sky blue instead of a rosy pink hue.