# Obama Wants to Negoiate with Iran?



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

guess he has been hanging out in the same think-tank as Jimmy Carter..

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/gates_ ... ode=49BD-1


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Funny thing, hunter9494.... There are two names found in the news story that you provided.... Robert Gates and Osama bin Laden. Barack Obama's name is nowhere to be found.

Maybe you missed the interview Obama gave yesterday in which he stated that he would do "whatever it takes" to make sure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. He further stated that this would include military action.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> the interview Obama gave yesterday in which he stated that he would do "whatever it takes" to make sure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.


If he becomes president lets hope he remembers that statement. It would put him above Dim Carter. That guy is a few fries shy of a happy meal. 
I think Obama may pamper and embolden the Palestinians to the point Israel reacts. Also if we can't through some negotiation stop the nuclear development in Iran the Masad may sneak in and detonate Iran's nuke. Talk about the poop hitting the fan. I wish Reagan had finished the star wars project. If Iran ever put a nuke on the pad for launch we should laser that puppy right where she sits.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Obama had previously said he would negotiate with the Iranians and the Palestinians.....i guess you missed that too. you really need to follow the news and his contradictory comments, he is a mess on critical issues, the economy, national defense and taxes. he is clueless and holds no position with any conviction whatsoever. mccain will crush him in the debates, if Hilary doesn't sneak up and bite him in the butt. lots of folks, that are paying attention, are catching on. the halo is gone, the honeymoon is over and the "change" moniker is worn out. time to "turn the page" and find a viable Presidential candidate worthy of the trust of millions of Americans.......God Bless (not damn) America.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Maybe you missed the interview Obama gave yesterday in which he stated that he would do "whatever it takes" to make sure that Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons. He further stated that this would include military action.


I missed it. Got a link? Or maybe the state and town he was in so the comment can be found. Notice that He further stated that this would include military action is not in quotation marks. Did he actually say that or is that what you think he may have meant.

I do know on November 2nd, 2000 he told the New York Times


> "that as president he would personally negotiate with Iran, offering economic incentives and a chance for peaceful relations if Iranian leaders would forego pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorists." He went on to say during the same interview "Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization and other economic benefits if the country shows "changes in behavior."


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Obama made the statements during an interview with ABC. Here is a link for more informaion: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4701724&page=1

Here is an excerpt:



> When asked how he would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, Obama told ABC News' Robin Roberts that he would do everything he could to prevent the country from having weapons in the first place.
> 
> "I was absolutely clear about the fact that if Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel, or any of our allies, we would respond forcefully and swiftly," said Obama.
> 
> ...


Sounds to me as though he wants to use diplomacy and non-military measures to deal with Iran first. If that doesn't work, he'll use miliatry measures. Makes sense to me.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> he'll use miliatry measures


You're reading something from political talk that is not there. Reacting forcefully and swiftly could also mean nothing more that a blockade. Why can't he actually use the words military force?

Are you aware that Obama introduced a resolution in the senate last November I believe it was, to say the President does not have authority to use military action against Iran? This was after the passing of the Kyl/Lieberman resolution that stated,

-- Iran is fighting a proxy war against the Iraqi and coalition forces in Iraq.
-- It is a vital national interest of the US to prevent Iran from turning Iraq's Shiite militias into a Hezbollah-like force.
-- The US should combat, contain and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
-- Prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power.
-- Designating Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corp. (IRGC) as a terrorist organization.

The Kyl-Lieberman resolution, in effect authorized the administration to move militarily against IRGC and other Iranian targets. If I remember correctly it passed with a huge majority.

Now he can't have it both ways. Would the real Obama please stand up.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You're reading something from political talk that is not there. Reacting forcefully and swiftly could also mean nothing more that a blockade. Why can't he actually use the words military force?


Now that falls more into line with what I have come to expect from Obama. Bigdaddy interprets differently than you or I. He is "hopeful" that Obama means he would use military force, while I see him intentionally deceiving us. He sounds tough, but he wants those who are "hopeful" to read into his statements and be assured he will protect this nation. At the same time when guys like me start to complain he wants to say "well, I never said I would use the military". These elitist types who have never faced physical threats or physical adversity think they can talk their way out of everything. Little do they know that guys like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad like the class bully will bust you in the face if your looking for a fight or a handshake. 
Cwoparson, I think this is a personal/psychological phenomenon where people like Obama, and people for Obama have never faced aggressive people. None of them have been in a situation that no matter what you say all your opponent wants is that feeling of the smack of knuckle to the flesh of your face. Long long ago in high school I learned the hard way that you don't talk to someone with your hands in your pockets to signal non aggression. Obama has his hands in his pockets, and I sometimes wonder if he would put up his dukes even after a nuke goes off in America. He just hasn't got the guts, he's over confident in his ability to persuade (liberal affliction) and he loves Muslims to much.

The real Obama will never stand up, because the real Obama would stand no chance of being elected. Deception is his only chance.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Where has not negotiating with Iran got us? Nowhere.

I'm all for opening up talks...diplomacy is free. I actually think Iran has the potential to be a huge ally for us in the middle east. I think we should, at the very least explore the option.

I know there's a lot of animosity and resentment for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...and rightfully so. But the truth is, we aren't sure of what he wants or what type of a leader he is because we've never engaged in any talks with him. Which is why I don't see how meeting with him and discussing our wants and him discussing his would be a bad thing.

At the very worst, we'll know for sure if he is as bad as he's been made out to be and know for sure what to expect from him.

Military action should always be a last resort and come only after failed diplomacy. Up until this point, there has be no diplomacy...that should be our first step with Iran.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Carter Negotiated with Iran for over a year. He got nowhere. It was the fear hat Regan would send in the troops that got our fellow Americans home the SAME day Regan was sworn in.

I agree that diplomacy is a great option, but when you deal with mad men you have to be able to sit down and talk peacefully while still keeping your finger on the big red "Dont **** with me" button. I dont think Obama is even willing to sit in the same room as that button, much less rest his finger on it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Diplomacy is always the first choice for rational people. No one is questioning that. However, when negotiating from a point of weakness your chances of negotiating successfully are poor. The best example was given by Gun Owner. Everyone knew they could walk all over Jimmy Carter, but Ronald Reagan was not to be taken lightly. 
Matt let us imagine for a moment that you, Gun Owner, Bigdaddy, and I all live in the same housing community about 1000BC. Now you have built a new fence around your hut that takes up 25% of Gun Owners yard. Bigdaddy has a huge club and decides that he is going to negotiate with you to relinquish Gun Owners property. What would you do.? I have the same size club as Bigdaddy, but decide I too will negotiate with you for the release of your holdings of Gun Owners property. Who is going to most influence you to give up that ill gotten property?
There is a time for negotiation, and when that fails I doubt Obama will take action. That knowledge will make all his negotiations fruitless. What bully will negotiate with a wimp? Especially one that respects radical Muslims to a dangerous degree.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Diplomacy is the right thing to do with some countries but Plainsman nailed it in his last line.



> What bully will negotiate with a wimp? Especially one that respects radical Muslims to a dangerous degree.


The reason why people hate GW is he never waivers. Step on his toes and expect a mouth full of teeth. What did Clinton do when the world trade center was attacked.....Nothing.... What did Bush do he sent a clear message that you mess the best you get smoked like the rest. We will never be attacked again as long as we keep a strong willed president in office.

Obama is the exact opposite of what a president should be. He is weak, unpatriotic, racist and a socialist exactly what this country needs if it wants to go down the crapper.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

WOW! I can't believe you guys are bringing up what happened with Iran under the Reagan administration...as a lesson for what we should do???

Uh, Iran-Contra ring a bell? So we should be like Reagan and sell arms to Iran, is that what you're suggesting????

Yes, I do realize that Iran did give up the hostages in the first minutes of Reagan being sworn in because they were afraid of him. It was a dumb move by Iran, if they would have held on to them Reagan would have gladly sold them weapons for their release like he did later on. Reagan's ways of dealing with getting hostages released were less then ideal.

It's crazy how you guys forget what actually happened. Reagan sold arms to both Iran and to a Saddam led Iraq. In '82 as the Iran-Iraq war escalated Reagan pulled Iraq off the list of terrorist nations just so he could sell Saddam arms. The helicopters Saddam used to gas Kurdish civilians were US built and bought from us under Reagan. You guys get so pizzed about Iran arming and lending support to militias in Iraq, that you forget that we were the ones that armed them in the first place.

There is one thing that Reagan did in the middle east that was very smart. In '83 when a suicide bomber drove into a marine compound in Beirut...do you know what he did? He didn't send over a shyteload more troops to "take care of the problem." He realized these people were friggin' nuts and pulled everyone out immediately. He didn't want to be responsible for any more servicemen deaths by placing them in the middle of region full of crazies.

So Carter was a puzzy and diplomacy didn't work _that time_ for getting what we wanted, I'll give you that. But that was going on 30 years ago, there's a different leader in power now who we haven't tried to deal with. Worst case scenario; we talk to him a little and if discussions don't get anywhere we always have the option for military force.

But please, don't you dare even try to tell me that Reagan knew what he was doing when it came to the Middle East. He's more responsible then other president (maybe even more than Bush II) for screwing that region up.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)




----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So we should be like Reagan and sell arms to Iran, is that what you're suggesting????


Is that really what you got out of my post.  If it is you have serious language problems. 

I don't think for a moment you got that from my post. It is a debate diversionary tactic, but not a very good one. Shall we now debate Obamas ability to negotiate and or take action on his merits, and the reality of what each of us say?


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

No, I wasn't trying to do it as diversionary tactic...merely trying to fill some of you in who have forgot what really happened in the middle east during the Reagan years since you were applauding his record there.

I guess I just get sick of every post on here being aimed at Obama and his supposed lack of various abilities. Why is McCain a better negotiator? Why is Hillary a better negotiator? The truth is neither of them are because, just like Obama, neither have had to negotiate with the middle east yet. The same goes for Reagan before he got into office. He too was untested. At this point it's all speculation. For all anyone knows, he could be the greatest negotiator of all time once he gets into office. The same goes for McCain or Hillary. We don't know, no one does.

So as to why I think he's the best choice of the three left when it comes to this, here's my opinion...

He was the only one to oppose going to Iraq from the start. That alone shows he had sound judgement when many others didn't expressing fears about what he thought would happen, before they actually did happen.

He's willing to negotiate first, and I think he has the balls to do what is necessary if negotiations don't work. McCain on the other hand either wants to stick to the status quo; which isn't working...or worse, throw gas on the fire. McCain even said in his book how he was angry at the politicians because he couldn't bomb russian ships when he was a pilot during Vietnam. I'm sorry, but that scares the shyte out of me. Can we all agree it would have been very, very bad had he been able to do what he wanted to do? I agree that we don't want a pansy behind the button, but I think it'd be worse to have a lunatic in that position. I'm more worried about having "Maverick" McCain with that power then I am Obama. Wanting to bomb russian ships (or invade Iran for that matter without negotiating first) shows a scary kind of judgement.

Obama wants to get out of Iraq. He realizes that isn't where the terrorists are at and he realizes we can't afford to stay there. He is smart enough to realize that the terrorists are residing in Pakistan and has already spoken of military action to take care of them. So I don't see that as being a pansy, like Carter, at all. He simply wants to use military action against people who are actually a threat to us. Which makes sense to me. You know, attack the people that actually attacked us and still want to attack us.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I see, and forgive me if I came off as a smart *** also.



> Why is McCain a better negotiator? Why is Hillary a better negotiator?


I think some of these terrorists know that Obama will talk forever and never take action. I think they worry that Hillary isn't the same push over, and although McCain is weak on illegal aliens I think they know he will not tolerate another attack in the United States. Negotiation with nothing to back it up is always fruitless.



> We don't know, no one does.


We don't know, but we have a confidence level in the 90 percentile. He has already shown his unwillingness to have backbone. He has not used the words "military action". Avoiding those words are no accident. He will eventually say them if he has to to win, but the closer we get to the real election and the more desperate he becomes the less likely those words will ring true.



> He was the only one to oppose going to Iraq from the start.


He wasn't in office when it started.



> He's willing to negotiate first


Anyone with half a brain is.



> and I think he has the balls to do what is necessary if negotiations don't work.


Not a chance. He has avoided any remarks that resemble what it takes to protect this country if the going gets tough.



> McCain on the other hand either wants to stick to the status quo; which isn't working...or worse, throw gas on the fire.


McCain is a little to gutless for me. He is better, but still gutless. Those who carry a loaded gun rarely need it. Whereas those who look pansy often need it. Ask a cop.



> McCain even said in his book how he was angry at the politicians because he couldn't bomb russian ships when he was a pilot during Vietnam. I'm sorry, but that scares the shyte out of me. Can we all agree it would have been very, very bad had he been able to do what he wanted to do?


We will never know.



> I'm more worried about having "Maverick" McCain with that power then I am Obama.


McCain is only a "Maverick" in the sense that he is a liberal in the republican party. He is a "Maverick" in the republican party, but would be mainstream in the democratic party.



> Wanting to bomb russian ships (or invade Iran for that matter without negotiating first) shows a scary kind of judgement.


That's only in your imagination Matt. At no time has any politician said they want to bomb Iran without first negotiating.



> Obama wants to get out of Iraq.


Jeeesh, Matt, so does everyone else. They just want to do it in a manner that doesn't result in certain death for millions of people who have supported us.



> He is smart enough to realize that the terrorists are residing in Pakistan and has already spoken of military action to take care of them.


I don't know if they are in Pakistan, so maybe he is an idiot for thinking that. I am sure some escaped to Pakistan. However, I am sure the Pentagon is well aware of that, so I'm not going to call them. Also, I never heard him say the words "military action".



> He simply wants to use military action against people who are actually a threat to us. Which makes sense to me.


Same here, and those that financially support those who attack us. Perhaps also gutless enemies who egg the fanatics on, stay in the background, but have a strategic location. Iraq would be an example.

All I see from Obama is a weak negotiating position, no border security, more selfare, more freedom to do anything and think it's ok. More tolerance that drags us deeper into the gutter every day. Nope, nothing positive about him.

And this coming from a guy with very little respect for McCain.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Matt, explain how you negotiate with people whose publicly stated goal is to kill us and our allies.

I see two distinct choices, negotiate and wait while they stall until they have nukes or act prior to them having them with military strikes, which one do you think will kill more people innocent and otherwise?

The reality is the "Obama peace at any price" idea doesn't work with lunatics like the weird beards that run Iran. Any group of people that willingly strap bombs on themselves andl blow themselves and encourage their own children to do the same for their religious goals cannot be reasoned with.

We should foment a Iranian revolution from within to overthrow their existing government, or kill them, all of them.

I don't much like McCain but hes not a pu$$y like Obama and the Iranians know it. Thats a good thing.

As for bombing russian ships :roll: considering those russian ships were supplying the people we were fighting can you blame any soldier of that era for wanting to hit them.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

First: Iran is working toward a nuclear bomb. I don't care how many times Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about nuclear power plants for electricity, every sane person in this country knows that a nuclear weapon is his true goal. :roll: :roll:

Let's spend just a few moments thinking of what happens when Iran gets the bomb. There are several scenarios. A nuclear strike on Israel is one, of course. Would the West retaliate? Perhaps.

OBAMA PROBABLY WOULDN"T but even if Obama grew a set and did
Remember this,

Ahmadinejad and his Islamic fascist pals don't really care how many of their countrymen are killed in any retaliation. They way they look at it, they're fighting and dying for Allah, and this guarantees their place in paradise. Kill infidels, or die trying to kill infidels. It make no difference. In their twisted vision of their religious duty, it's all the same.

So ... Iran makes a few nuclear weapons. They then use the porous border between the U.S. and Mexico( this is where McCain falls short big time) to bring one of those bombs into the U.S. Perhaps in the well-shielded back of a minivan. They park the minivan in a garage of some ordinary house in an obscure neighborhood in some mid-sized American city.

Then they conduct a nuclear test in Iran. Surprise! We have the bomb! 

As the world is reacting to the Iranian nuclear test, some deranged Mullah steps up to the microphones to inform the world that there is a bomb just like the one they tested somewhere in the United States. There's another in some Western European country. The world is then informed that both of these bombs will be detonated unless certain Islamic demands are met.

Which option would you choose if you were President? 
diplomacy 
sanctions 
military action 
something else

What demands?

Well, let's start with the removal of all U.S. and Western troops out of the Middle East.

Next, all Jews are told to leave Israel or face annihilation. 
The U.S. is told that if we dare to defend Israel, the bomb will be detonated.

In short order the Islamic fascists have complete control over the entire Middle East.

Next all moderate Arab governments will fall. The Persians of Iran will rule. All oil supplies to the Western world will be held hostage to Iranian demands. You think gas is expensive now???????

*Now ... is there anything in this scenario thus far that you think is absurd? *

Can you not see things playing out pretty much this way? Sure, there are as many possibilities are there are people capable of dreaming them up.

Any way you look at it, Iran with a nuclear bomb isn't a warm and fuzzy thought. :sniper:

So .. what do we do?

There are three main alternatives.

Diplomacy 
Sanctions against Iran 
Military action 
Diplomacy?

Tell me, please, how that is going to work. The Islamic world sees America as weak. When George Bush first initiated the war against Radical Islam we were seen as strong and full of resolve. The Arabic world responded to that image of strength and determination.

Libya immediately halted its weapons programs.

Saudi Arabia started to institute reforms that called for more democratic processes.

Syria was trembling in fear that American troops would not stop at its border with Iraq.

*Then ... the left got rolling. Democrats' hatred of George Bush overwhelmed any resolve they may have had to defeat Islamic fascism. Islamic fascists who once feared that a dangerous and resolute America had been pushed too far suddenly saw signs of weakness. The "Bush lied - People died" campaign was in full swing, and Islamists were in full smile. *

Democrats were pushing for a timetable to war, a timetable that Islamic murderers would use as one for conquest.

*Diplomacy?*

Sorry .. but we're operating from a position of weakness in any diplomatic discussions with Iran. 
In fact, like Obama Mr. Appeasement himself, Jimmy Carter, just got back from to swapping spit with Hamas!

This meeting with hamas by Carter will be viewed by Islamists as a sign of American weakness. Obama is Carters grandson, another never met a terrorist dictator he wouldn't A$$ kiss.

If you think that negotiating with Iran from a position of perceived weakness will do the trick, then go for it! Worked great for Carter in the 70's didn't it, huh didn't it.

Let us know how in your mind that same route will work out for Obama!

*Sanctions??*

Let me read to you the headlines in the world's major newspapers just a few weeks after we impose sanctions on Iraq.

Iranian Sanctions Bring Hunger

Women and Children Suffer Under Oppressive Sanctions

Iranian Children are Dying for Lack of Medicines

Get the picture???????

As soon as we impose sanctions the left's publicity machine will crank up in perfect step with Islamic propagandists uke: .

Ahmadinejad is not above starving his own people to get images of death that can be broadcast worldwide and blamed on the Americans and their sanctions. In the meantime, Russia will make sure that the Iranian nuclear program isn't hurt. Who knows, maybe a little help will come from North Korea as well!

With sanctions the United States will soon be painted as a horrific monster that is set out on a course of genocide against the Iranian people. The world media will be all-too-happy to promote that image.

*Military Action*?

The simplistic solution would seem to be to just send in the military to destroy as much of Iran's nuclear infrastructure as possible. You do know, don't you, that Ahmadinejad has surrounded the Iranian nuclear development sites with as many Iranian school children and women as possible. He has taken steps to guarantee that any Israeli or U.S. strike against his nuclear program will result in the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands of women and children. If our planes and bombs don't kill them, then he will ... with all blame placed on America.

Remember ... there are new rules out there. While Muslims can get a pass on shooting children in the back, the United States simply cannot take any military action, no matter how grave the threat may be, if that military action would result in the death of a civilian, let alone a woman or child. :roll:

There are your options.

Do you want to sit in the Oval Office and make the decision as to how we respond?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> McCain even said in his book how he was angry at the politicians because he couldn't bomb russian ships when he was a pilot during Vietnam. I'm sorry, but that scares the shyte out of me.


During that era intelligence believed Russian pilots were flying some of the Mig-21's out of North Vietnam. We damn sure new the Russians were training the North Vietnamese pilots. Russian ships in the war zone would shadow American ships at close range and often cut into the path of American ships in attempts to disrupt the ships operations. One of their greater delights was to wait until two US ships were hooked together for fueling and then cut into their path, trying to cause a collision. Got a news flash for you pal, everyone wanted to bomb the SOB's.



> Can we all agree it would have been very, very bad had he been able to do what he wanted to do?


Only if you were a Russian. Russia knew very well our superiority over their military and would have run at the first shot. If it were possible, all you would have to do is ask Khrushchev why he backed down during the Cuban missile crises.

Kennedy knew better than to sit down and negotiate with Khrushchev. Had Obama been President then with his idea of leadership, I suspect Castro would have been sitting on a pile of Nuke warheads by the time negotiations were completed his style.

No Matt, people haven't forgotten what happened during the Regan years but we also haven't forgotten how the liberal left tried to paint a different picture such as your doing right now. There was a hell of a lot more that transpired during, before and after the Iran Contra affair than what your trying to spin here and you know it. Even the pull out of Lebanon you have wrong. Reagan withdrew our troops not because of the bombing but because the government of President Gemayel had collapsed. The Marine barracks bombing was coincidental to his decision. With no government to support there was no need to be there. Britain and Italy announced at the same time for their removal of their troops. The three countries made the decision together and before the bombing. Didn't stop the spin masters in Washington though.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bobm said:


> *Now ... is there anything in this scenario thus far that you think is absurd?*


Yes, I think the picture you paint is absurdly paranoid and highly unlikely.

I really doubt Iran views us as weak, or that they'd have the balls to park a nuke in the US and make demands...they are fully aware that their entire country would be nuclear glass in minutes.

Look, we're not going to agree. We clearly have very different viewpoints of what we need to do.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Matt Jones said:


> Bobm said:
> 
> 
> > *Now ... is there anything in this scenario thus far that you think is absurd?*
> ...


Thats the whole problem though. Ahmadinejad fully beleives that the Muslim Messiah is coming to this world very soon. Part of this belief includes the idea that upon the messiahs arrival, most of the world will be destroyed. He wants to develop nuclear technology to help this along.

*When a man beleives that god wants him to do something, no amount of talking is going to fix that.*

How often do we hear about someone killing people, even drowing their own children because they believed it was God's will? Hand one of these people a nuke and see what happens. I guarantee is wont be all sunshine and rainbows at the end of that day.

Give this a read, and then think about whether we should let Obama handle the existance of a nuke after its built AND deployable.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=48225


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

OK, so what do you guys think needs to be done about Iran then? You're all very clear on your stance that they are a huge threat.

All I've heard is that we either can't negotiate with them, or that we might already be past that point. Some have hinted at military action, but no one has laid it out for me as to exactly what they'd do.

So let's say Iran got's a nuke tomorrow, what's the plan?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> So let's say Iran got's a nuke tomorrow, what's the plan?


They don't... YET.

The plan should be to stop that from happening with a firm warning from the UN ( althought thats unlikely with China and Russia happy to see us preoccupied) with demands for inspection and if they refuse an immediate military strike on all known nuclear sites. Drop leafletts to let the civilians know in a couple hours that site will be toast.

Its a bad deal but I would rather their civilians die than 50,000 of ours in amajor American city go up in nuclear smoke one of these days.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Matt from your past posts I take it you think they are a huge threat also. As Bob said they don't have a bomb yet. Also since the world thought Iraq was right on the brink and everyone was wrong we will be much more careful this time. 
As they approach the completion of their first bomb, we better be on the ball. Unfortunately since the 1990's when we stopped dealing with bad guys we are left sort of half bind. We are in a bad situation now where we can't afford to be late in pressures we bring to bear, neither can we jump the gun. The Bush lied people died has a great amount to do with this predicament. Liberal political ambition has damaged us globally. 
If we telegraph our intention to sternly Russia or China may make some threats that would leave them with egg on their face if they don't back them up. However, as much as they beat the drums they know they are no longer a match for us. That leaves us some leeway. Our biggest danger will be liberals screaming bomb, bomb, bomb, then backing out when things get dangerous. Same ol' same ol'. 
As we all agree begin with negotiations. Give the UN a chance even though that is worthless. Give the UN a timetable to accomplish something, and let them know full well that they are out of the picture if they have not accomplished significantly by a specific date. They will fail of course (as always) so follow up with direct negotiations. Compromise, to a certain degree, but as far as anything that could hide any serious endangerment to the United States don't give them anything. Be nice for a while, then if they show no consolatory action get tougher. 
If negotiations fail drop pamphlets on the large cities explaining that their leaders have failed to negotiate, and they should retreat to the countryside before cities begin to disappear in a nuclear cloud. If this doesn't turn the people against their leaders start with an attempted clandestine operation against their nuclear facilities. I would rig them to blow if possible. Better it looks like they blew themselves up than a U S. plane delivering the weapons on target. If all else fails and they get a bomb developed we better have good enough intelligence to know where it's at, then be willing to drop something big enough to get it if we are slightly off target. 
It's better we act before Israel does, because if Israel does we will have another world war. The terrorist want to be will not distinguish between Israel and nations that support mid east peace for Israel and them. These are nut jobs Matt, and it will come down to them or us. We are on a collision course with destiny and it's going to happen. Radical Muslims will bring it about through no choice of ours. We simply have to decide if we will put someone in Washington who will stop them, or talk to them while Americans die. It is that simple, and this is not an exaggerated opinion. Watch and see. If they are not stopped soon they will make WWI and WWII look like grade school picnics. We have not had war on this soil, but we will, and no matter how far you burry your head you will not avoid it. It isn't yours or my choice. 
If we could choose you could have Obama to protect you. Me, I'll wish Patten was still alive. Like him I wouldn't die for my country, I would make the other poor fool die for his.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Hillary has the "balls" to deal with Iran


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> Me, I'll wish Patten was still alive. Like him I wouldn't die for my country, I would make the other poor fool die for his.


I think most sane people wish that were true. Unfortunately the problem isn't that we don't have Patton today, it's that if we did...he'd be stuck in the same boat as Petraeus.

Times have changed. It used to be that when you went into a country and took them over you got to take what you wanted. If Iraq had happened 60 years ago, it'd be a US colony and all their oil would be ours.

Things don't work that way anymore, imperialism is dead.

We're still trying to do it, but there are too many rules to make it profitable and worth doing in the modern world. Especially when the people we're trying to take over don't have to play by the same rules we do.



Bobm said:


> Its a bad deal but I would rather their civilians die than 50,000 of ours in amajor American city go up in nuclear smoke one of these days.


I agree 100%. I've said it before, and I'll say it again...I don't give two shytes about anyone in the middle east.

Which is why I want to see an energy-isolationist America so we can completely remove ourselves from that part of the world and let them get back to killing each other. Oil is really the only reason we're there. If it wasn't for that, we wouldn't care about the region being stable. We could let it be just like Africa.


----------

