Should Obama Visit Tehran?

[The Rabbi]

They haven't started a war in centuries.

America has though, in Iraq. What a mistake that was. Conservatives want to repeat that mistake in Iran.

We didnt start the war in Iraq.
And Iran has been a sponsor of terrorism for ages.

Bush did, in 2003. His father was so much smarter in not invading and occupying Iraq. What a fiasco the Iraq War was. We can't repeat it with another stupid war of choice in Iran.

Instead, we can contain a nuclear armed Iran.

No he did not. Iraq repeatedly violated its agreements, precipitating the war. Had Bush Sr gone ahead all the way to Baghdad we would not have had to refight the war.
There is no such thing as a war of choice. Anotehr soundbite by brain dead libs.

 

[Knightfall]

I reject the premise that the President should be visiting any foreign nations in any buy the most critical of instances. We have these crazy new devices these days called phones and Skype which allow the President to interact directly with people all across the world without needing to actually be there in person. What possible reason is there for us to spend ten million dollars a day to have our President schmooze with a foreign official in person? It's a complete waste of money.

Ignoring that, I'm not as uptight about it as some, but I see meeting with foreign leaders as a tacit approval of their government, and I would therefore like to see the President refrain from giving brutal regimes legitimacy.

An Obama visit to Tehran seems to have the same potential for authentic Change as Nixon's trip to China. Nixon and Kissinger resented the Taiwan lobby and its disproportionate effect of US foreign policy in ways that are similar to AIPAC's influence on Middle Eastern politics today. A visit from Air Force One would certainly be better than another demonstration of shock and awe.

Before Nixon went to China, the Chinese never attacked the American Embassy and held Americans hostage for 444 days. The Chinese never called America The Great Satan. The Chinese never vowed Death to America. The Chinese are reasonable people, Iranians are Muslims. Nixon was an accomplished diplomat, Obama is an affirmative action hack.

Obama should go to Iran only AFTER Iran apologizes for the 1979 atrocities. And stop doing what they are doing to women, Christians and gays.

"Mohammad Mosaddegh or Mosaddeq[a] (Persian: مُحَمَد مُصَدِق*; IPA: [mohæmˈmæd(-e) mosædˈdeɣ] ( listen); 16 June 1882 – 5 March 1967), was the democratically elected[1][2][3] Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d'état orchestrated by the British MI6 and the American CIA."

Neither the Iranians nor the Chinese ever overthrew a US President and imposed a vicious dictator in his place.

We have far more to apologize for than the Persians do.

Mohammad Mosaddegh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for mentioning the coup; I hadn't heard of that. It's just another example of why the United States needs to stop messing with foreign affairs unless it directly affects us.

He needs to take military action off the table. No more stupid wars of choice.

If he took military threats off the table, Iran would no longer feel the need to obtain a nuclear weapon.

We invaded their neighbors, parked our navy right next to them, sanctioned their economy in recession, conservatives consistently call for bombing Iran....

...but we're to believe that Iran is the problem and the aggressor? Waht?

What do you mean by "wars of choice." I'm not challenging you; I just don't know what you mean.

I can't really see how the United States has any right to tell Iran they can't have nukes...as much as I detest the idea, but even if all threats of intervention were stopped, I can't see how you can argue that Iran would stop their nuke program. After all, we know they want to destroy Israel.

Finally, I haven't heard a conservative call for the bombing of Iran in the last five years. I'm sure there are some that hold that position, but it's not mainstream even on the conservative side of the aisle.

 

[velvtacheeze]

If Obama had any sense, which of course he hasn't, he should immediately cease all communications and increase sanctions .... let alone visit Iran!

He is such a fool that he doesn't want to realize Iran is only taking advantage of his smug weakness!

Sanctions don't work. Iranians don't blame their government for them. They blame the West, especially America. They would rather have a nuclear program with sanctions, then not have one without sanctions. It's about their dignity and pride. They would rather get bombed then give up their enrichment rights.

Thank goodness McCain and Romney lost. We'd be so mired in Middle East wars of choice by now.

Of course they were working. That's why the Iranians agreed to negotiations.

They took their sweet time getting to the table, and aren't keen on giving the West much in return for fewer sanctions. It was Rouhani's decision to negotiate, not pressure from the sanctions.

We need to really debate what the US does after no deal is made. The Iranians aren't giving in, and I frankly don't blame them. Would you want America to get bossed around like Iran does? No way.

I say we have a containment policy towards Iran, with full diplomatic relations restored.

 

[georgephillip]

He has already dropped his pants and bent over for Iran so yeah why not.

So what would a "real man" do in Obama's place, impose new sanctions on Iran thereby killing any chance of a deal on Iranian nuclear power?

 

[velvtacheeze]

Finally, I haven't heard a conservative call for the bombing of Iran in the last five years. I'm sure there are some that hold that position, but it's not mainstream even on the conservative side of the aisle.

“I think the time for talking [with Iran] is over.” [10/21/12] Fine Dandy Sen Lindsey Graham.

Hawks Pushing 'Zero Enrichment' Have Been Calling For War With Iran | ThinkProgress

 

[georgephillip]

And here we see the troll thread Jew-hater coming out. Yes, it's all about Israel. George would be happy for Iran to nuke Tel Aviv.

Israel has dozens of nuclear weapons, and Iran has none.
Who's most likely to nuke the other?
Unlike some hired killers on this thread, I would be happy to tax killing into extinction.

Because Israel has threatened to wipe Iran off the map repeatedly, right? Oh, wait.
You are such a retard. No wonder you hate Jews.

Israel has regularly bombed its neighbors from Iraq, to Syria, to Lebanon while Iran has talked about vanishing Israel from the page of time.

"The following is a list of United Nations resolutions that concern both Israel and Palestine and bordering states such as Lebanon. The Human Rights Council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than it has all other states combined." (including Iran, Einstein)

List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[blackhawk]

He has already dropped his pants and bent over for Iran so yeah why not.

What should the US have done? Let me guess. More War.

Continue the sanctions that were weakening regime instead of easing them and giving Iran breathing room.

 

[The T]

He has already dropped his pants and bent over for Iran so yeah why not.

What should the US have done? Let me guess. More War.

Continue the sanctions that were weakening regime instead of easing them and giving Iran breathing room.

Starve 'em.

 

[Bloodrock44]

He would fit right in.

 

[blackhawk]

He has already dropped his pants and bent over for Iran so yeah why not.

So what would a "real man" do in Obama's place, impose new sanctions on Iran thereby killing any chance of a deal on Iranian nuclear power?

No you should have left the ones that were hurting the regime in place now if Iran does not follow through on this short term deal what do you think the odds are of getting the world to along with reimposing the sanctions that were lifted? The odds on that seem slim to none no one outside of Israel will take military action from what I can tell we have just weakened our strongest tool to use on Iran with no backup plan if this mini deal fails.

 

[The T]

Against the US? No, they're not.

YES they are...Remember IRAQ?

See the state of that place lately? YOU are an idiot, and remain BLIND as well as stupid.

Yes, the state of Iraq is a mess. The mistake that led to what's happening now happened in 2003, and the President who made the mistake was George Dumbya Boosh, the War Monkey.

NO Yer BOY Obama changed that and we see the result. AQ supported by IRAN is running the joint wreaking havoc.

 

[velvtacheeze]

He has already dropped his pants and bent over for Iran so yeah why not.

What should the US have done? Let me guess. More War.

Continue the sanctions that were weakening regime instead of easing them and giving Iran breathing room.

But that wasn't stopping their program. Bibi Nutsandyahoos had a big poopy whine about how the sanctions were stopping the Iranian program.

It was just making poor people poorer. I guess doing that to Americans just doesn't satisfy conservatives, so you have to make poor Iranians suffer too.

You have to give Iran something in return for them not building a nuclear weapon. What is it that you would be willing to give them, if no weaker sanctions?

 

[georgephillip]

Further sanctions look dead in the senate. Senator "I love the NSA!" Feinstein apparently embarrassed the agents of Israel in the senate enough to silence them. Looks like she's not completely worthless after all.

Now, if we could only get the Israel-groupies elsewhere in the USA to back off. Time to use the same tactics of embarrassment, and point out that loyal US citizens shouldn't be urging the USA to fight wars on behalf of Bebe and the Israeli right wing.

Robert Gates has been urging no new sanctions, as well; although, some of his reasoning seems suspect:

"'As hard as it may be for people to realize, what we may be seeing is the success of the sanctions effort done by president (Bill) Clinton, intensified by president Bush and even more so by president Obama, to force the Iranians to come to the table because of economic hardships,' Gates said.

“'I think we have succeeded to the extent that we now have the Iranians at the table.'”

"He pointed to the clear effect of economic pressure on the Islamic republic."

Robert Gates: Obama is ?absolutely right? to oppose new sanction against Iran | The Raw Story

IMHO, Iran politics changed when Obama couldn't muster enough support to boost Raytheon stock by lobbing cruise missiles at Assad.

That only happened because most conservatives hate Obama more than they love killing Muslim women and children for Wall Street.

 

[georgephillip]

And here we see the troll thread Jew-hater coming out. Yes, it's all about Israel. George would be happy for Iran to nuke Tel Aviv.

Israel has dozens of nuclear weapons, and Iran has none.
Who's most likely to nuke the other?
Unlike some hired killers on this thread, I would be happy to tax killing into extinction.

Iran has no nuclear weapons because they want to develop nuclear energy strictly for peaceful purposes. YEAH, RIGHT!! And, of course, Jay Leno has dozens of vintage cars and I have only one minivan.

On the other hand, Israel never declared that they want to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth, as Iran PLANS to do with Israel.

I would think that a country who just wants to be left alone is less likely to attack than the one that has not only desire but intention to annihilate the other.

Please explain your last sentence.

What part of my last sentence are you confused about?
Israel has bombed Iraq, Lebanon(repeatedly), Syria(repeatedly) and been condemned by the UN more than any other country on the planet.
Iran has not waged a War of Aggression against another state in over two hundred years.
If you honestly believe Israel "just wants to be left alone", you haven't been paying attention to the Middle East since 1948.

 

[georgephillip]

Because Iran has no history of starting wars or promoting terrorism, right, Sparky?

They haven't started a war in centuries.

America has though, in Iraq. What a mistake that was. Conservatives want to repeat that mistake in Iran.

We didnt start the war in Iraq.
And Iran has been a sponsor of terrorism for ages.

We launched a War of Aggression against Iraq in 2003 without UNSC authorization or any immanent threat by Iraq. Iranian sponsored terror can't hold a candle to the terror inflicted on innocent civilians by the greatest purveyor of violence in the world.

 

[georgephillip]

If Obama had any sense, which of course he hasn't, he should immediately cease all communications and increase sanctions .... let alone visit Iran!

He is such a fool that he doesn't want to realize Iran is only taking advantage of his smug weakness!

What threat to global peace does Iran present?
They haven't invaded another country in more than two hundred years.
Unlike the US which has completely destabilized the Middle East in the last decade.

They have sent their creature Hesbollah into Lebanon and Syria. They are the most destabilizing force in the ME.

If 650,000 Jews don't inflict an ethnocracy on 1.2 million Arabs in Palestine of 1948 by force of arms, Hezbollah never exists:

"Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and was primarily formed to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.[5]

"Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government.[26]

"Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its objectives as the expulsion of 'the Americans, the French and their allies definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land', submission of the Phalangists to 'just power' and bringing them to justice 'for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians', and permitting 'all the sons of our people' to choose the form of government they want, while calling on them to 'pick the option of Islamic government'".

Hezbollah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[The T]

What threat to global peace does Iran present?
They haven't invaded another country in more than two hundred years.
Unlike the US which has completely destabilized the Middle East in the last decade.

They have sent their creature Hesbollah into Lebanon and Syria. They are the most destabilizing force in the ME.

If 650,000 Jews don't inflict an ethnocracy on 1.2 million Arabs in Palestine of 1948 by force of arms, Hezbollah never exists:

"Hezbollah was conceived by Muslim clerics and funded by Iran following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and was primarily formed to offer resistance to the Israeli occupation.[5]

"Its leaders were followers of Ayatollah Khomeini, and its forces were trained and organized by a contingent of 1,500 Iranian Revolutionary Guards that arrived from Iran with permission from the Syrian government.[26]

"Hezbollah's 1985 manifesto listed its objectives as the expulsion of 'the Americans, the French and their allies definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land', submission of the Phalangists to 'just power' and bringing them to justice 'for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians', and permitting 'all the sons of our people' to choose the form of government they want, while calling on them to 'pick the option of Islamic government'".

Hezbollah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just can't help the anti semite shit, can you? HOW did the JEWS enter into this? Can't STAND dem JEWS can you?

ASSHOLE.

 

[blackhawk]

What should the US have done? Let me guess. More War.

Continue the sanctions that were weakening regime instead of easing them and giving Iran breathing room.

But that wasn't stopping their program. Bibi Nutsandyahoos had a big poopy whine about how the sanctions were stopping the Iranian program.

It was just making poor people poorer. I guess doing that to Americans just doesn't satisfy conservatives, so you have to make poor Iranians suffer too.

You have to give Iran something in return for them not building a nuclear weapon. What is it that you would be willing to give them, if no weaker sanctions?

It it was having no impact Iran would have never made a deal to get them eased. Do you really think the Iranian government cares the slightest about poor Iranians? I will ask you the question I put on a different post on this thread if Iran does not follow through on their part of the deal which is likely given their past history what's the plan then? The U.S. has basically put it's self in a all or nothing position with this deal and I fear nothing is what is coming.

 

[georgephillip]

He's not on the side of peace, otherwise he would not be running interference for them while they build their nuclear weapons.

Do you have evidence Iran is building nuclear weapons?

Besides the fact that they're enriching uranium beyond what they need for their stated purposes, are hiding their enrichment facilities, not allowing inspectors in to verify they are not building them, building new missiles that are designed to carry nukes, and vowing to wipe Israel off the map, then no I don't have proof (not that it would matter to you).

Do you have any links to prove your fantasies(or can you still tell the difference)?

"Over the weekend, Iran and six world powers, including the United States, reached an interim deal under which Iran agreed to limit its nuclear program in exchange for an easing of economic sanctions.

"As part of the six-month deal, Iran is required to dilute its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, halt all enrichment above 5% and dismantle the technical equipment required to do that enrichment.

"It also agreed to freeze essential work on the heavy-water reactor under construction at Arak, southwest of Tehran.

"But Amano noted that the invitation applies only to the heavy-water production plant, not the heavy-water reactor.

"Though the IAEA does not have inspectors stationed permanently in Iran, it has at minimum a team of two inspectors at any given time, and usually has two teams of two inspectors, he said."

How does that compare to the IAEA's presence at Dimona?

IAEA: Iran invites inspectors to visit Arak nuclear site - CNN.com

 

[georgephillip]

He has already dropped his pants and bent over for Iran so yeah why not.

So what would a "real man" do in Obama's place, impose new sanctions on Iran thereby killing any chance of a deal on Iranian nuclear power?

No you should have left the ones that were hurting the regime in place now if Iran does not follow through on this short term deal what do you think the odds are of getting the world to along with reimposing the sanctions that were lifted? The odds on that seem slim to none no one outside of Israel will take military action from what I can tell we have just weakened our strongest tool to use on Iran with no backup plan if this mini deal fails.

It isn't clear to me how a military action by anyone in this case enhances the stability of the region. Sanctions typically don't have much affect on elites, especially those in government or the richest 1% of the population that all governments cater to. Sanctions do create great hardships for the majority of the population, and an entire generation has grown up in the Middle East viewing Israel and the US as their greatest threats. I would think we need policies to reverse the hatred before more of it blows back on the homeland.