Us Ambassador to Libya killed by Militants

[Sub-Husker]

I'm just sick and tired of rhetoric and no results.

 

The "no results" is by design, and won't be fixed until we enact real campaign finance reform.

[carlfense]

Can you cite that (or anything resembling that) as a campaign promise?

I don't know if it's a promise exactly . . . but it's pretty close.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

If by that you meant sit down with Iran . . . well that was rather explicit. I agree with you if you meant that Obama said that all of our problems would be solved by such a meeting.

 

And since when has aggressive diplomacy been seen as a sign of weakness (this is an open question to anyone)?

When has it been seen as a sign of weakness? Often. Should it be seen as a sign of weakness? No.

[carlfense]

I'm just sick and tired of rhetoric and no results.

 

The "no results" is by design, and won't be fixed until we enact real campaign finance reform.

While I agree that we need real campaign finance reform I strongly disagree that "no results" is by design. Both sides would like to enact their agendas.

[knapplc]

Can you cite that (or anything resembling that) as a campaign promise?

 

I don't know if it's a promise exactly . . . but it's pretty close.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

 

Senator Barack Obama says he would “engage in aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iran if elected president and would offer economic inducements and a possible promise not to seek “regime change” if Iran stopped meddling in Iraq and cooperated on terrorism and nuclear issues.

 

Both of the two preconditions are known to be non-starters as they are defined by our expectations.

 

 

But this has been a condition for talks from EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since the Shah was deposed. Every one.

 

Why is it suddenly a problem that Obama sticks to this? Seems like Obama is being held accountable for something that we should be holding Iran accountable for.

[Sub-Husker]

While I agree that we need real campaign finance reform I strongly disagree that "no results" is by design. Both sides would like to enact their agendas.

 

The agenda of both sides is similar, other than on social issues.

 

"By design", I meant that both the Ds and Rs support a similar pro-corporate (banker, etc) agenda that we see as a lack of progress.

[carlfense]

While I agree that we need real campaign finance reform I strongly disagree that "no results" is by design. Both sides would like to enact their agendas.

The agenda of both sides is similar, other than on social issues.

 

"By design", I meant that both the Ds and Rs support a similar pro-corporate (banker, etc) agenda that we see as a lack of progress.

What alternative economic agenda would you propose?

[Sub-Husker]

But this has been a condition for talks from EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since the Shah was deposed. Every one.

 

I have been opposed to our foreign policy toward Iran of "EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since the Shah was deposed".

 

Why is it suddenly a problem that Obama sticks to this? Seems like Obama is being held accountable for something that we should be holding Iran accountable for.

 

1) "Opposition to Terrorism" means that Iran cut its military ties with all alligned militias that are on its border, and allow these militias to fall under the control of hostile foreign forces. In addition we support terrorism inside Iran.

 

2) "Nuclear Program" means allowing western intelligence agents inside their facilities. I guess this wouuld be reasonable if Israel agreed to a similar gesture.

[Junior]

I'm aghast by Romney's stance on Obama "aplogizing" for American.

[knapplc]

1) "Opposition to Terrorism" means that Iran cut its military ties with all alligned militias that are on its border, and allow these militias to fall under the control of hostile foreign forces. In addition we support terrorism inside Iran.

 

2) "Nuclear Program" means allowing western intelligence agents inside their facilities. I guess this wouuld be reasonable if Israel agreed to a similar gesture.

 

These are very pro-Iranian concerns you have here. Which is odd, considering they're a sworn enemy of the U.S., and Israel is an ally.

[Tree Planter]

protesters angered over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad fired gunshots and burned down the US consulate in Benghazi. LINK

 

Here we go.

 

 

Any idea what film it is they're talking about?

 

This terrorist attack on 9/11/12 was likely an al Qaeda terrorist operation.

 

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/12/13824089-us-wont-rule-out-islamist-militant-link-to-attack-on-us-consulate-in-libya?lite

[krill]

Apologies for the "nuke it from orbit" comment, yes it is a quote from Aliens, and yes it was sarcasm directed @ the people who act like a small group of crazies should dictate our foreign policy. What you won't see in the media are things like this:

 

http://imgur.com/a/tlCyI

 

The only hope for a peaceful middle east is education, opportunity and functional governments; in the absence of that intolerance and violence will always fill the void the no matter how it is masked. May I remind you that not two generations ago, in some parts of the south people wouldn't think twice about lynching a black man on the way to church...now that sort of thing is universally not tolerated. People can change, attitudes in the younger generations can change very quickly, and that is always our best hope.

 

People bring up Iran without realizing that the culture there is very different there than the Arab world, and really the situation is that there's a hollow shell of a religious theocracy trying to hold on to power. The population there is far more educated, the economy more diversified and robust, attitudes about women and religion more liberal, and most of the population is too young to remember the Shah or why they are supposed to hate America. Much to the chagrin or the religious state, many aspects of western culture is actually quite popular there. It's a dangerous game trying to help them move to democracy, without looking like we're meddling, before they get the bomb, or Israel bombs them. Israel also has a great deal of internal political conflict that is playing out with Netanyahu's erratic behavior, and I believe Obama is absolutely right to keep him at arms length while still showing support for the state with our usual allotment of guns and money.

[knapplc]

Never apologize for quoting Aliens.

[strigori]

But this has been a condition for talks from EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since the Shah was deposed. Every one.

 

I have been opposed to our foreign policy toward Iran of "EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since the Shah was deposed".

 

Why is it suddenly a problem that Obama sticks to this? Seems like Obama is being held accountable for something that we should be holding Iran accountable for.

 

1) "Opposition to Terrorism" means that Iran cut its military ties with all alligned militias that are on its border, and allow these militias to fall under the control of hostile foreign forces. In addition we support terrorism inside Iran.

 

2) "Nuclear Program" means allowing western intelligence agents inside their facilities. I guess this wouuld be reasonable if Israel agreed to a similar gesture.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you seem to be suggesting Israel have inspectors to look for nuclear weapon development. Israel already has nukes.

[Excel]

1) "Opposition to Terrorism" means that Iran cut its military ties with all alligned militias that are on its border, and allow these militias to fall under the control of hostile foreign forces. In addition we support terrorism inside Iran.

 

2) "Nuclear Program" means allowing western intelligence agents inside their facilities. I guess this wouuld be reasonable if Israel agreed to a similar gesture.

 

These are very pro-Iranian concerns you have here. Which is odd, considering they're a sworn enemy of the U.S., and Israel is an ally.

 

To what extent?

 

I understand what you mean; the relationship and treaties, but in realpolitik terms what do they bring to the table? How does that compare to what we provide them? How does our relationship with Israel further our national goals and interests?

 

The way I see it Israel provides us, in real terms, with the occasional bits of valuable intelligence (keep in mind I mean "valuable" for us to know in their minds) and a few pieces of innovative defense technology (counter IED equipment, the "Israeli bandage", etc) and very little else. We say we support them because they're somehow a democracy which I suppose they are legally speaking but in practice much of what they do stands pretty openly against our values; their definition of citizenship, their treatment of Arab and Muslim minorities within their own citizenry and of course in the wider Palestinian territories.

 

I'd say we support Israel more because of groups like AIPAC and long standing cultural and historical ties. Hell, Golda Meir grew up in Milwaukee. We have a strong and influential Jewish community in this country and an even larger group of evangelicals that believe supporting the state of Israel is somehow an act of piety.

 

In the end I think our support of Israel probably causes more trouble than its worth. At least the extent to which we support them now. They are in no way some bastion of enlightenment principles that they seem to be made out to be. Our reward for shipping billions of dollars their way each year is measured in terrorist acts, strained diplomatic relationships and repressive neighboring regimes we must support as a result of the Carter doctrine, itself in many ways a result of our relationship with Israel.

 

The current state of affairs is bad for everyone involved; the Arabs, the Israelis and us.

[sd'sker]

But this has been a condition for talks from EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since the Shah was deposed. Every one.

 

I have been opposed to our foreign policy toward Iran of "EVERY SINGLE PRESIDENT since the Shah was deposed".

 

Why is it suddenly a problem that Obama sticks to this? Seems like Obama is being held accountable for something that we should be holding Iran accountable for.

 

1) "Opposition to Terrorism" means that Iran cut its military ties with all alligned militias that are on its border, and allow these militias to fall under the control of hostile foreign forces. In addition we support terrorism inside Iran.

 

2) "Nuclear Program" means allowing western intelligence agents inside their facilities. I guess this wouuld be reasonable if Israel agreed to a similar gesture.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but you seem to be suggesting Israel have inspectors to look for nuclear weapon development. Israel already has nukes.

i think he means israel should be held to the same standard we ask of iran.