Appeasement in Our Time - Obama completely undermined US leverage with Iran and offered irresponsible concessions

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2015 2:06 PM GMT
    Appeasement in Our Time - One unforced error after another. Today's Neville Chamberlain

    An acceptable diplomatic solution to the danger posed by Iran’s nuclear program might have been available, but only had the United States maintained tough sanctions and a credible threat of military force. President Obama instead utterly undermined U.S. leverage and has offered so many irresponsible concessions that any deal struck under this president would be a dangerous deal.


    Chamberlain told the British public that in Munich he had achieved “peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.” Churchill argued in response, “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.” The same can be said of President Obama as he approaches his Munich.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/appeasement-our-time_867729.html#
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 02, 2015 2:27 PM GMT
    There's something in the piece that begs questions:

    "In contrast (to Britain in 1938 ), the United States today remains the world’s sole superpower, capable of inflicting tremendous damage on Iran—a third-rate power suffering from sanctions—that would set back its nuclear program for years. Yet Obama has chosen to put himself into as weak a position as Chamberlain found himself in."

    If the capability to inflict "tremendous" damage qualifies us as a superpower, doesn't that mean we aren't the world's sole superpower? If being a superpower also means that we have the "unparalleled" ability to influence, isn't using that influence more important than using our destructive power? No matter what the administration "gives up" during negotiations, we'll always have that destructive power, we will always be a credible threat to Iran, will we not?
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 02, 2015 3:34 PM GMT
    @SouthBeach

    You fall for such troll bait. You realize that Mr. Netanyahu is on the eve of a VERY CLOSE election, right? You realize he's just grand-standing, right? You realize that nobody is giving Iran nuclear weapons, or will allow them to have them, right?

    We simply don't want to start another war now. Diplomacy is the FIRST means, war the LAST. You want to bomb and then apologize, we want to cajole and bomb if necessary.

    You have it backwards.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/world/middleeast/white-house-and-netanyahu-aipac-conference.html?_r=0
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 02, 2015 3:46 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said@SouthBeach

    You fall for such troll bait. You realize that Mr. Netanyahu is on the eve of a VERY CLOSE election, right? You realize he's just grand-standing, right? You realize that nobody is giving Iran nuclear weapons, or will allow them to have them, right?

    We simply don't want to start another war now. Diplomacy is the FIRST means, war the LAST. You want to bomb and then apologize, we want to cajole and bomb if necessary.

    You have it backwards.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/world/middleeast/white-house-and-netanyahu-aipac-conference.html?_r=0

    As much as I prefer to not have anything to do with you, as the creator of the thread I have to call out your complete nonsense:
    Absurd comment about no one allowing Iran to get the bomb. The article clearly points out the holes.
    As far as grandstanding - complete rubbish again. Well prior to the Israeli election, Netanyahu has worried about Iran getting close to nuclear capability. Existential threat to Israel.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 02, 2015 3:52 PM GMT
    @SoCalFitness

    Yes, I can see how much Netanyahu "cares" by a quick news story search, seems his rhetoric always ratchets up RIGHT BEFORE his elections. Even Jewish commenters have pointed this out.

    And incidentally, since you want to make a public forum invitation only and personal, by your pissy attitude I'm guessing you're single and have been for a long time. Correct or incorrect?
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 02, 2015 4:02 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidwe'll always have that destructive power, we will always be a credible threat to Iran, will we not?

    Yes but that's the wrong question. The question is at what cost to the US and its allies, including Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states?

    Iran caught - again - trying to illegally enrich Uranium;
    Iran dreams of "a world without the US and Israel."

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/666082

    Recall further that even some of its "moderate" leaders (e.g. Rafsanjani) advocated a first strike because while Iran could destroy its enemy, it would survive the counter strike and only lose a few cities (think of it as suicide bombing taken to a nuclear level, sacrificing not one person to murder many, but one city to destroy many).

    The further question is if we will have the resolve to use our destructive power, without fear of another Vietnam or Iraq/Afghanistan, or political fallout at home.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 02, 2015 4:05 PM GMT
    Svnw688 saidDiplomacy is the FIRST means, war the LAST. You want to bomb and then apologize, we want to cajole and bomb if necessary.

    Obviously there shouldn't be any bombing unless necessary, but if the other side thinks you are walking softly and won't use your big stick (Teddy was such the size queen), they won't be cajoled.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 03, 2015 12:25 AM GMT
    AyaTrollah pouncer> Iran is a country that can create all kinds of trouble for the US in the Middle East.

    He says this as if they don't already have a rich history of doing so, starting with taking hostage the US embassy in Tehran and Hizbullah in Lebanon in the 1980s?

    AyaTrollah pouncer> Is this the same guy (Netanyahu) who predicted Iran was "3 to 5 years" away from getting a bomb in 1992?

    Thankfully Iran has suffered numerous setbacks, including explosions at their plants and the loss of scientists and (most recently) key generals involved in the program.

    Propaganda pouncer> the Iraq War in 2003, when Israeli "intelligence" largely echoed US "intelligence"?

    Not true. Israel intelligence stated that Iraq isn't the threat and that eyes should stay focused on Iran.

    Idiot/hypocrite pouncer> the increased sanctions pre-2013 had reached the point of being tantamount to an act of war

    How odd that troop deployments into DMZs on 2 fronts surrounding a small country, combined with threats to attack, along with the closure of an international waterway (all in violation of existing ceasefire agreements) aren't "tantamount to" or "an act of war", while legal sanctions are?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14372

    Mar 03, 2015 2:26 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidCaesarea/mwolverine and pouncer.

    Can you please NOT do your usual Arab / Israeli war show in this topic. You are going to pollute it with the same old stuff that is OFF TOPIC.

    Go make your own topic and have your little war there.

    We all thank you.

    don't worry, caesarea/mwolverine is too busy counting all his money to be bothered with any type of political debate with pouncer.icon_lol.gif
  • nicebritguy

    Posts: 31

    Mar 04, 2015 3:03 PM GMT
    ...and exactly why can't Iran have nuclear capabilities?
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 04, 2015 3:35 PM GMT
    nicebritguy said...and exactly why can't Iran have nuclear capabilities?


    While I think it is the right of any nation in a nuclear armed world to help shield itself from the existing nuclear threats posed by those who already have them, increasing the number of nuclear armed nations is exact opposite of the direction we should be headed.

    I think we're probably going to have nuclear war before we start heading the right direction, unfortunately.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Mar 04, 2015 3:37 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    nicebritguy said...and exactly why can't Iran have nuclear capabilities?


    While I think it is the right of any nation in a nuclear armed world to want to shield itself from the existing nuclear threats posed by those who already have them, increasing the number of nuclear armed nations is exact opposite of the direction we should be headed.

    I think we're probably going to have nuclear war before we start heading the right direction, unfortunately.
  • nicebritguy

    Posts: 31

    Mar 04, 2015 4:20 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    nicebritguy said...and exactly why can't Iran have nuclear capabilities?


    While I think it is the right of any nation in a nuclear armed world to help shield itself from the existing nuclear threats posed by those who already have them, increasing the number of nuclear armed nations is exact opposite of the direction we should be headed.

    I think we're probably going to have nuclear war before we start heading the right direction, unfortunately.


    So I appreciate your sentiment, but this is an argument as to why the US, UK, Israel et al shouldn't have nuclear arms. The hypocritical nations have absolutely no moral superiority over Iran.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2015 5:05 PM GMT
    nicebritguy said
    Physiqueflex said
    nicebritguy said...and exactly why can't Iran have nuclear capabilities?


    While I think it is the right of any nation in a nuclear armed world to help shield itself from the existing nuclear threats posed by those who already have them, increasing the number of nuclear armed nations is exact opposite of the direction we should be headed.

    I think we're probably going to have nuclear war before we start heading the right direction, unfortunately.


    So I appreciate your sentiment, but this is an argument as to why the US, UK, Israel et al shouldn't have nuclear arms. The hypocritical nations have absolutely no moral superiority over Iran.


    Here's your moral superiority.

    gay_hanging_iran_zpsrd3fqvh8.jpg
  • nicebritguy

    Posts: 31

    Mar 04, 2015 5:22 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn - well done, you can find an image of a government doing a bad thing. If I had the inclination, do you know what? I could show a lot of really awful things that the US and Israel have done.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2015 5:26 PM GMT
    nicebritguy saidrkyjockdn - well done, you can find an image of a government doing a bad thing. If I had the inclination, do you know what? I could show a lot of really awful things that the US and Israel have done.


    No doubt, but can anyone cite some recent - say, 10 years, just to be generous - examples of the US, Israel, or ANY Western country executing gay men simply for being gay?

    Iran can be trusted only as far as Obama can be: not at all.
  • nicebritguy

    Posts: 31

    Mar 04, 2015 5:32 PM GMT
    So is this the theme of today? Judge every country solely on the basis of how gay people are treated? So, drone murders can be excused because domestically gay people aren't killed? Nice logic.

    A more adult approach would be to consider things holistically.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 04, 2015 5:37 PM GMT
    MGINSD said
    nicebritguy saidrkyjockdn - well done, you can find an image of a government doing a bad thing. If I had the inclination, do you know what? I could show a lot of really awful things that the US and Israel have done.


    No doubt, but can anyone cite some recent - say, 10 years, just to be generous - examples of the US, Israel, or ANY Western country executing gay men simply for being gay?

    Iran can be trusted only as far as Obama can be: not at all.


    Take away the Obama jab and I'll sign onto MGINSD's sentiment.

    Going further, some nations and, yes, religions ARE morally superior to others. It's not to say it's intrinsic to Christianity and Western governments. But it is to say this. Both Christianity and Western governments have had a long and arduous history of trial and experiment. Our lessons were learned with blood and we would be remiss to forget them. We were wild "adolescents" in the Middle Ages, and the Enlightenment caused a lot of growth in us. I'm not certain, precisely, why the Middle East from a religious or geopolitical standing didn't come along for the historical ride and moral lessons, but "we" (Christianity and Western governments) have progressed to where we are not by chance, but through HUGE GROWING PAINS.

    To state the Middle East or Islam is on the same plane as "us" is absurd. Just look at the beheading photos. We're not perfect, as LGBT inequality shows, but we're a heck of a lot better than certain individuals lynching in the sand.

    I hope the Middle East and Islam writ-large join "us" at the table someday, but it'll take hundreds of years of trial and error, and quite frankly I don't want to be collateral damage to their growing pains.

    Stop with the false equivalencies.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Mar 04, 2015 5:43 PM GMT
    nicebritguy saidSo is this the theme of today? Judge every country solely on the basis of how gay people are treated? So, drone murders can be excused because domestically gay people aren't killed? Nice logic.

    A more adult approach would be to consider things holistically.


    Iran said gays don't exist in Iran, and that the nation-state of Israel should be blown up.

    I mean, whatever litmus test you want to interpose the Middle East and Islam will fail.
  • nicebritguy

    Posts: 31

    Mar 04, 2015 6:34 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said
    MGINSD said
    nicebritguy saidrkyjockdn - well done, you can find an image of a government doing a bad thing. If I had the inclination, do you know what? I could show a lot of really awful things that the US and Israel have done.


    No doubt, but can anyone cite some recent - say, 10 years, just to be generous - examples of the US, Israel, or ANY Western country executing gay men simply for being gay?

    Iran can be trusted only as far as Obama can be: not at all.


    Take away the Obama jab and I'll sign onto MGINSD's sentiment.

    Going further, some nations and, yes, religions ARE morally superior to others. It's not to say it's intrinsic to Christianity and Western governments. But it is to say this. Both Christianity and Western governments have had a long and arduous history of trial and experiment. Our lessons were learned with blood and we would be remiss to forget them. We were wild "adolescents" in the Middle Ages, and the Enlightenment caused a lot of growth in us. I'm not certain, precisely, why the Middle East from a religious or geopolitical standing didn't come along for the historical ride and moral lessons, but "we" (Christianity and Western governments) have progressed to where we are not by chance, but through HUGE GROWING PAINS.

    To state the Middle East or Islam is on the same plane as "us" is absurd. Just look at the beheading photos. We're not perfect, as LGBT inequality shows, but we're a heck of a lot better than certain individuals lynching in the sand.

    I hope the Middle East and Islam writ-large join "us" at the table someday, but it'll take hundreds of years of trial and error, and quite frankly I don't want to be collateral damage to their growing pains.

    Stop with the false equivalencies.


    Well, the European enlightenment was stimulated by Islamic Arab readings of ancient Greek, which re-entered European consciousness through Spain and Southern France during Muslim rule, so it's wrong to see the west and the 'east' as independent in terms of 'progress'.

    Furthermore, the plight of most of the Middle East is pretty much due to Europe and America, historically speaking. Everything from the way the Ottoman Empire was carved up, to the way democracy and progress is prohibited by US backed tyrants. Western 'superiority' is not inconsequential to the 'inferiority' of the rest of the world.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2015 7:34 PM GMT
    pouncer saidSvnw688, there is nothing in the Arab or Islamic world that compares to colonialism, the Holocaust, Apartheid, the Vietnam War, or the continuous US invasions and subversions since WW2 that have overthrown over 50 world governments and spilled an ocean of blood. Just because the extremists "over there" commit their atrocities in the name of radical Islam while "we" commit ours in the name of national and patriotic values, means little. This is the kind of warped "morality" that leads someone to think a maniac with a knife and a hostage in the Syrian desert is worse than a President who orders the drowning of a civilian society in chemical weapons to stop them voting for communists.


    The entire history of Islam's creep across the continents is nothing but colonialism, and the most violent form of it; yes, even compared to the Spanish. And, you should know better than to conflate Arabs w/ Muslims.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 04, 2015 9:11 PM GMT
    pouncer saidNo, it is not "colonialism", which happens to have a definition and a meaning. Oh, and do let us know if you have evidence of an Islamic Caliphate stretching from South America to the Philippines, with wholesale native extermination, as in the Anglo and Hispanic spheres.

    But if you want to talk about early Islam, what about the supposed "victims", the Byzantines and the Crusaders (Franks)? The former was an empire, the latter invaders. What about the Christian Goths and Vandals who conquered Spain, and therefore were only defending themselves in "re"-conquering it and turning it into a Christian hellhole? You are aware that in Iraq its common to hear comparisons of the American invasion of 2003 with the Mongol invasion of 1258, right? The difference being that the latter caused incomparably more cultural destruction?

    Sometimes I wonder if there is ever any reasoning with the successfully self-deluded.


    Google the Baha'i faith's treatment in Iran and the plight of the Kurds in Iraq. Extermination of non-believers is a part of the Islamic faith -- unlike Christianity who when it engages in such behavior, is behaving counter to its tenants.

    Do you really want to live under Sharia law?
  • nicebritguy

    Posts: 31

    Mar 04, 2015 10:05 PM GMT
    rkyjockdn said
    pouncer saidNo, it is not "colonialism", which happens to have a definition and a meaning. Oh, and do let us know if you have evidence of an Islamic Caliphate stretching from South America to the Philippines, with wholesale native extermination, as in the Anglo and Hispanic spheres.

    But if you want to talk about early Islam, what about the supposed "victims", the Byzantines and the Crusaders (Franks)? The former was an empire, the latter invaders. What about the Christian Goths and Vandals who conquered Spain, and therefore were only defending themselves in "re"-conquering it and turning it into a Christian hellhole? You are aware that in Iraq its common to hear comparisons of the American invasion of 2003 with the Mongol invasion of 1258, right? The difference being that the latter caused incomparably more cultural destruction?

    Sometimes I wonder if there is ever any reasoning with the successfully self-deluded.


    Google the Baha'i faith's treatment in Iran and the plight of the Kurds in Iraq. Extermination of non-believers is a part of the Islamic faith -- unlike Christianity who when it engages in such behavior, is behaving counter to its tenants.

    Do you really want to live under Sharia law?


    Yeah because Kurdishness is a belief icon_rolleyes.gif

    You might also want to look at how Muslims are persecuted in Burma, or how Christians are treated in Israel.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 05, 2015 12:47 AM GMT
    AyaTrollah pouncer saidthere is nothing in the Arab or Islamic world that compares to colonialism

    ROTFL. Right, because the Arab Empires that rolled across the Mideast, North Africa and into Spain were just there to share Hummus.

    Ask an Assyrian, Berber, Copt, Kurds and others and they will disagree with Propaganda pouncer.
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 3386

    Mar 05, 2015 12:49 AM GMT
    nicebritguy saidthe European enlightenment was stimulated by Islamic Arab readings of ancient Greek, which re-entered European consciousness through Spain and Southern France during Muslim rule, so it's wrong to see the west and the 'east' as independent in terms of 'progress'.

    And what has happened in the 500 years since?

    nicebritguy saidthe plight of most of the Middle East is pretty much due to Europe and America, historically speaking. Everything from the way the Ottoman Empire was carved up, to the way democracy and progress is prohibited by US backed tyrants.

    Bunk. The decay happened during the rule of the Ottoman Empire (and the Mamlukes before).