Forum Thread

NYT: Obama and the Iran Doctrine

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 46 - 60 of 90 Prev 2 3 4 5 6 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote: I trust Iran more than I trust Israel. Israel is not a democracy.

    I am tired of fighting wars on Israel's behalf too.

    And I also trust Iran more than I ever will Israel. Iran hasn't been responsible for the death of a single American soldier, but we somehow label them a mortal threat to the entire world. It's Republican fear mongering at its best. I just wish they would come out and admit that they want another war in the Middle East. At least they would be telling the truth then.

    I fully agree with Schmidt; Were was the US when they bombed Gaza to pieces? No one is talking about that anymore; I guess Republicans wash their hands.

    We should treat Israel as any other country; why do they get all the favors they want; including nukes? kind of hypocritical favoritism.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Washington Post, July 15, 2015: Full text: Obama’s news conference on the Iran nuclear deal

    President Obama held a press conference today outlining the Iran nuclear deal and answering questions at length. Obama had obviously done his homework, and explained every point of contention with patience. For those on this website that have doubts or disagreements on the terms of the deal, I'm sure you will find your answer here explained fully to your satisfaction.

    After he had exhausted his list of questioners, he opened the meeting up to invite more questions. He did not rush the conference. His role was there to educate and explain and push back on all the false and misleading info put out by his opponents.

    So Johnnycee...read on...

    First of let me say thank you for taking the time to post the President's speech and the following Q&A, I find it easier to understand the written word as opposed to listening to a speech , so with that in mind ,it did ally some of my distrust about this accord, although I still feel that Iran is not be trusted , I liked the explanation of the inspection issue and the time frame to which it was accorded, I did not know that the 24 days was for suspected sites only and not an over all requirement, also the reason given for the weapons embargo being lifted, I still don't like but I can appreciate the reasoning behind it and I will hope that it works, I can understand and appreciate Israel and the other Middle East Nations apprehensions regarding a possible Nuclear Arms Race, considering that the daily rhetoric coming out of Iran is the utter destruction of their nation. Again thanks Schmidt for the posting.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: There were 6 Nations who participated in these talks , Britain, China ,France, Germany, Russia and the US, not one from the Middle East,

    That's my entire point. You keep talking about this deal as if it were written by the President himself and that he put a gun to the P5 + 1 and forced them to go along with it.

    Each country has their own geopolitical issues and each country will not just let America dictate to them what the final deal will be. If the Congress doesn't endorse this deal then the deal will still go through in the other five countries, thereby blowing up the entire sanctions regime anyway.

    The deal is done. The foreign ministers and Secretary Kerry have flown home. We are either going to join the international community or not.

    johnnycee Wrote: you speak of Iran as if they were God's gift to it's citizens, while speaking of Saudi Arabia , you criticize them for their stance on women issues as being subjugative while not considering Iran's treatment of it's women population,

    I said no such thing. Let's try to refrain from the strawman's and keep focused on the debate.

    I'm just a pragmatist and also can't help but point out the fact that you are sticking up for Saudi Arabia, the country responsible for 9/11 and nearly 3,000 American deaths, while hammering Iran, a country that isn't responsible for a single American death that we know of.

    I never said that I didn't consider Iran's treatment of women. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy in sticking up for the country who is wholly responsible for 9/11 and saying we should be more worried about their feelings than staving off yet another (potentially nuclear) armed conflict in the Middle East.

    johnnycee Wrote:at least women in Saudi Arabia are allowed to drive , and get educated,

    I think you're a little confused here. Iran allows all of its women to drive; Saudi Arabia is currently drafting a law that will allow women to travel without a man's permission. That law hasn't been passed yet...

    Iranian women make up over half of university students in Iran; Saudi Arabia teaches its women Wahhabism, which instructs them from a very young age to obey their masters (aka men) and only allows them to enroll in a handful of universities.

    Women in Iran are far, and I mean FAR, more educated than women in Saudi Arabia. Women have seats in the Iranian parliament. Saudi Arabia has zero women in any position of power.

    Are women equal to men in Iran? Absolutely not. Do women in Iran have more rights than women in Saudi Arabia? That is a resounding and unequivocal yes.

    johnnycee Wrote: you certainly like to cherry pick things to suit your narrative, this deal is no good, trust me, as you will soon find out. As for pulling out the troops, the argument has been made that if we stayed the development of ISIS would not have occurred and of course the results of that decision has been felt for years and will be felt years from now.

    The same argument can be made that we would have never heard the name ISIS had George W not invaded Iraq in the first damn place. That decision is what we are still grappling with today. Obama's decision to cut our losses and stop wasting our national treasure being sitting ducks in a country that was in the grip of a religious civil war only happened after that error of all errors.

    johnnycee Wrote: Now just out of curiosity , what are some of the many things that you did not agree with the President on?

    Not forcing through major Wall Street reform; not using his bully pulpit to force far higher taxes on capital gains and offshore bank accounts; not fighting for Single-Payer for all; not fighting to raise the maximum threshold on the Social Security tax; his hesitancy to use his pardon powers to commute or pardon nonviolent drug offenders; and last, but not least, his reluctance to fight for major criminal justice reform and ending the utter failure that is the "war on drugs" which sends nonviolent "criminals" off to prison on the taxpayer dime for decades at a time because they possessed a plant, powder, or rock.

    I was way ahead of him on gay marriage, but at least he eventually came around to my point of view on that issue.

    Now, let's get back on topic please because this has absolutely nothing to do with our current thread.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Washington Post, July 15, 2015: Full text: Obama’s news conference on the Iran nuclear deal

    Thank you for sharing Schmidt. That was a great press conference.

    I'll also add this three minute video by Vox that explains this complex deal in layman's terms.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    So we are in agreement that both Iran and Saudi Arabia treat their women harshly, one harsher then the other,so why criticize one without criticizing the other? And I never said this was the President sole idea but since he placed himself in the front as spokesman most questions and criticism are directed at him, so you can assume all you want, which you are want to do anyway , btw ,you brought the women issue into the conversation by mentioning their subjugation by the Saudi's.. Now I am willing to wait and see how this progress's thru the House and Senate and with much more details being revealed as would be expected, but I am not going to trust the Iranian government at this point.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    PERFECTLY said Jared. President Obama said it himself today to reporters, with words saying that NOT Netanyahu nor any Republican has offered anything but objections---not even one hint of an alternative plan. As Obama said, there are only two plans available: 1. Verbal negotiations. 2. Military invasion. Obviously we know where McCain and Graham stand on this, but the majority of the American people are with the President.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Michael39301 Wrote: PERFECTLY said Jared. President Obama said it himself today to reporters, with words saying that NOT Netanyahu nor any Republican has offered anything but objections---not even one hint of an alternative plan. As Obama said, there are only two plans available: 1. Verbal negotiations. 2. Military invasion. Obviously we know where McCain and Graham stand on this, but the majority of the American people are with the President.
    iirc, churchill said jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: So we are in agreement that both Iran and Saudi Arabia treat their women harshly, one harsher then the other,so why criticize one without criticizing the other? And I never said this was the President sole idea but since he placed himself in the front as spokesman most questions and criticism are directed at him, so you can assume all you want, which you are want to do anyway , btw ,you brought the women issue into the conversation by mentioning their subjugation by the Saudi's.. Now I am willing to wait and see how this progress's thru the House and Senate and with much more details being revealed as would be expected, but I am not going to trust the Iranian government at this point.
    J.C. It is clear that you only accept the way you live. Sorry this is a big world and the US is only a tiny portion of it. What other nations do with their own people should be no concern for you or the US. The US has its own faults let's correct that before we judge other nations. Trusting a Government, Iranian or your own, I find that kind of silly, since no Government in the world can satisfy everyone; like I don't trust that you are a Democrat.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: So we are in agreement that both Iran and Saudi Arabia treat their women harshly, one harsher then the other,so why criticize one without criticizing the other? And I never said this was the President sole idea but since he placed himself in the front as spokesman most questions and criticism are directed at him, so you can assume all you want, which you are want to do anyway , btw ,you brought the women issue into the conversation by mentioning their subjugation by the Saudi's.. Now I am willing to wait and see how this progress's thru the House and Senate and with much more details being revealed as would be expected, but I am not going to trust the Iranian government at this point.
    J.C. It is clear that you only accept the way you live. Sorry this is a big world and the US is only a tiny portion of it. What other nations do with their own people should be no concern for you or the US. The US has its own faults let's correct that before we judge other nations. Trusting a Government, Iranian or your own, I find that kind of silly, since no Government in the world can satisfy everyone; like I don't trust that you are a Democrat.
    Dutch, it is clear that you only accept the way you live. etc, etc. see how this works . You cannot conceive of any one as having a different view than yours and be correct in their thinking, I merely stated that I don't trust the Iranians at this point giving their past history to abide by any tenets of any agreements unless it benefits their agenda, I said , nothing about Governments satisfying everyone, and the mistrust covers both Democrats and Republicans parties and in both houses.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote:
    Dutch Wrote:
    johnnycee Wrote: So we are in agreement that both Iran and Saudi Arabia treat their women harshly, one harsher then the other,so why criticize one without criticizing the other? And I never said this was the President sole idea but since he placed himself in the front as spokesman most questions and criticism are directed at him, so you can assume all you want, which you are want to do anyway , btw ,you brought the women issue into the conversation by mentioning their subjugation by the Saudi's.. Now I am willing to wait and see how this progress's thru the House and Senate and with much more details being revealed as would be expected, but I am not going to trust the Iranian government at this point.
    J.C. It is clear that you only accept the way you live. Sorry this is a big world and the US is only a tiny portion of it. What other nations do with their own people should be no concern for you or the US. The US has its own faults let's correct that before we judge other nations. Trusting a Government, Iranian or your own, I find that kind of silly, since no Government in the world can satisfy everyone; like I don't trust that you are a Democrat.
    Dutch, it is clear that you only accept the way you live. etc, etc. see how this works . You cannot conceive of any one as having a different view than yours and be correct in their thinking, I merely stated that I don't trust the Iranians at this point giving their past history to abide by any tenets of any agreements unless it benefits their agenda, I said , nothing about Governments satisfying everyone, and the mistrust covers both Democrats and Republicans parties and in both houses.

    J.C. Again you did not put your glasses on (you were addressing how "women" were treated etc.); you do the same thing again of which Jared accused you. Let me quote what he wrote as well.

    Quote" How you continue to have the audacity to call yourself a Democrat is laughable, "Unquote:...............how you are constantly guilty of using red herrings to muddy any discussions, whenever someone provides you with facts that are contrary to your stated dogma........ another statement; So please read before reacting is the message.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Let's all try to keep focused on the Iran deal.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch, I would suggest that you re-read if you ever read Jared's posting at all, from 7/15 where he stated" You mean Saudi Arabia, the country that subjugates their women", I responded in kind, so you see it was not me who brought women into the conversation, pay more attention Dutch.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Dutch, I would suggest that you re-read if you ever read Jared's posting at all, from 7/15 where he stated" You mean Saudi Arabia, the country that subjugates their women", I responded in kind, so you see it was not me who brought women into the conversation, pay more attention Dutch.

    I recommend that if you are going to quote me you at least provide the entire quote.

    You were speaking of Iran's neighbors who didn't like the deal. I pointed out the craziness of your position sticking up for a country who

    "...subjugates their women and teaches "Death to America" to every single citizen in their country? Saudi Arabia, the country whose citizens made up the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers that flew passenger airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon and killed 2,977 of our citizens? You're worried about them not liking the deal?"

    These are Iran's neighbors who don't like the deal. Dictators and kingdoms who rule their countries with an iron fist. These are the people you are sticking up for and suggesting we should be more worried about their feelings than preventing yet another war in the Middle East.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The question was posed that I brought the subject of women into the conversation and not what was in your entire statement, I needed only to show the portion of your statement that showed the genus of the topic of women. also I am not "sticking up" for anything other than the fact that I don't trust the Iranians at this point in time to adhere to any agreement. And btw , there are other Middle East Countries that are not comfortable with this deal.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: And btw , there are other Middle East Countries that are not comfortable with this deal.

    That's because those countries are Sunni and Iran is Shiia. The Sunni countries won't be happy with any deal outside of Iran's total and complete capitulation on the nuclear issue. Their being against the agreement has to do with their fear of Shiia influence in the Sunni dominated countries, not about the agreement itself.

    I'm sorry, but I don't think we should conduct our foreign policy and international diplomacy based solely off of what dictators and tyrants in Sunni dominated countries think. And we definitely should't be conducting our foreign policy based off of what a lunatic like Benjamin Netanyahu thinks.