The Iran Thread

[Mr Sparkle]

ahhhh Nega - Celldog!

 

[lazur]

sorry about the huge font. Tried to fix it, but it keeps messing up. Anyways I'm with Obama here. We have nothing to lose. It's time. The path to war between our countries is becoming more and more unavoidable as each day passes.

Sorry, reasoning with Iran's people might be one thing, but reasoning with Iran's warped government is completely different. The last thing we should do is try and 'strike a deal' with a corrupt government that is bent on killing all 'infidels' from the west. If anything, we should topple the Iranian government and give the country back to the people.

NEXT!

 

[bullets]

kickin @ss and kissin @ss ! woo hoo obama bin ....

 

[Venomfan]

theres no pics of hot chicks in this thread

 

[Spade]

I was going to read the argument, but I'm posting this with temporary blindness after the font size assaulted my eyes.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

You wanna fix Iran? Do the same thing you did to make it how it is now. Exile the leader now and bring in the old leader (the heir to the original throne)

 

[Alex The Great]

Obama pledges new relationship with Iran

He says diplomacy part of an effort to stabilize Iraq, bring troops home
[SIZE="3"]
CHICAGO - Senator Barack Obama said 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.
In an hourlong interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama made clear that forging a new relationship with Iran would be a major element of what he pledged would be a broad effort to stabilize Iraq as he executed a speedy timetable for the withdrawal of American combat troops.
Mr. Obama said that Iran had been “acting irresponsibly” by supporting Shiite militant groups in Iraq. He also emphasized that Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program and its support for “terrorist activities” were serious concerns.

But he asserted that Iran’s support for militant groups in Iraq reflected its anxiety over the Bush policies in the region, including talk of a possible American military strike on Iranian nuclear installations.
Making clear that he planned to talk to Iran without preconditions, Mr. Obama emphasized further that “changes in behavior” by Iran could possibly be rewarded with membership in the World Trade Organization , other economic benefits and security guarantees.
“We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing some good faith,” he said in the interview at his campaign headquarters here. “I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect changes in behavior. And there are both carrots and there are sticks available to them for those changes in behavior.”
Distinguishing himself
In his Democratic presidential bid, Mr. Obama has vigorously sought to distinguish himself on foreign policy from his rivals, particularly Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, by asserting that he would sit down for diplomatic meetings with countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria with no preconditions.
The suggestion, which emerged as flash point in the campaign, has prompted Mrs. Clinton to question whether such an approach would amount to little more than a propaganda victory for the United States’s adversaries and to question the experience of Mr. Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois. Other Democrats, in turn, have criticized Mrs. Clinton for an approach to Iran they called too hawkish.
Mr. Obama’s willingness to conduct talks at the highest level with Iran also differs significantly from the Bush administration. The administration has authorized Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to discuss Iraq with Iranian officials. But the White House has also said it will not engage in high-level talks on other issues unless Iran first suspends its program to enrich uranium. Nor has the Bush administration advertised in such detail the possible rewards for a change of Iranian behavior.
Obama: Looking forward on Iraq
Through most of the interview, Mr. Obama spoke without referring to notes. At one point near the end of the session, he leaned forward in his chair and looked at a yellow legal pad on the table in front of him, which listed points where he believed he and Mrs. Clinton differ on how to go forward in Iraq.
“You don’t want to look backwards, but obviously our general view about this mission as a whole has been very different,” Mr. Obama said. “She missed the strategic interests that should have dictated whether we went to Iraq in the first place or not.”
getCSS("14383019")

Message board
What do you think of Obama's candidacy?



Mrs. Clinton has said that after carrying out major troop withdrawals she would leave a residual force in Iraq to fight Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia , battle other terrorist groups, train the Iraqi Army and deter Iranian intervention.
Mr. Obama has also talked about keeping a limited force in Iraq after withdrawing American combat units at the rate of one or two per month. But Mr. Obama insisted in the interview that the mission of his residual force would be more limited than that posited by Mrs. Clinton.
Details of residual force idea
Mr. Obama said, for example, that the part of the residual force assigned to counterterrorism might be based outside Iraq. He also emphasized that the residual force would not have the mission of deterring Iranian involvement in Iraq. He said he would commit to training Iraqi security forces only if the Iraqi government engaged in political reconciliation and did not employ the Iraqi Army and police for sectarian purposes. In any event, he said, American trainers would not be attached with Iraqi units that go in harm’s way.
getCSS("3053751") More from NYTimes.com
Click links below:
Bush defends Mukasey, sees unfairness
In pledge, Edwards reflects on wife's cancer fight
Colbert's presidential bid grounds to a halt


External links


“The trainers are going to have to be provided with missions that don’t put them in vulnerable situations,” he said. “Part of what my goal is is that the trainers are not constantly embedded in combat operations.” Whether such a limited force could effectively influence events in Iraq is an important question. Keeping the part of the force assigned to counterterrorism outside the country raises the issue of whether it could respond in a timely way and without the benefit of the sort of intelligence that is gathered by forces that regularly interact with Iraqi civilians. Nor is it clear how, without keeping some combat forces in the country, the American military might rush to the aid of any trainers if they came under attack.

Click for related content
Obama promises to get tough with Clinton
Role for Al Gore in Obama White House?
Cheney, Obama are eighth cousins


Mr. Obama acknowledged in the interview that there were “legitimate questions” as to how his concept of a residual force might work, and said he would adjust it if necessary after discussions with senior military leaders.
“As commander in chief, I’m not going to leave trainers unprotected. In our counterterrorism efforts, I’m not going to have a situation where our efforts can’t be successful,” he said. “If the commanders tell me that they need X, Y and Z, in order to accomplish the very narrow mission that I’ve laid out, then I will take that into consideration.”
An aggressive policy
For all his efforts to emphasize an approach that calls for minimal military involvement in Iraq, Mr. Obama’s plan is in one respect more ambitious than Mrs. Clinton’s. While Mr. Obama said he hoped to withdraw all American combat forces within 16 months of taking office, his plan states that American and allied troops should be prepared to return to Iraq and protect civilians if there were genocidal attacks against civilians.
“I do not anticipate that happening, because I think we can execute our withdrawal in an effective way,” he said. “What I am saying is that I as president am obviously going to be mindful of the possibility of humanitarian disaster and if that were to occur, I am not ruling out that we wouldn’t take steps in concert with other nations — even if it was short term — to ensure that a wholesale disaster did not take place.”
Mr. Obama argued that it was “too speculative” to say if the United States would undertake such action unilaterally or only if allied nations chose to participate.

Other aspects of his policy for the Middle East region also remain unclear. Mr. Obama declined to say if he would consider military action if Iran did not abandon its presumed nuclear weapons program or if he would settle for a strategy of deterring and containing a nuclear-armed Iran.
“My decision making, with respect to military options versus diplomatic options, a containment strategy versus a strike strategy, is going to be informed by how is that going to impact not just Iran,” he said, “but how is that going to impact the stability of the region and how’s that going to impact our long-term security interests.”
Obama visited Iraq
Mr. Obama, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, visited Iraq in January 2006. Asked whether that was his last visit, given how much events on the ground have changed since then, he jumped in before the question was finished, saying, “Given how important this is, why haven’t I gone back?”
“I’ll be honest with you,” he said. “Part of it is that my schedule is such that the trips would be one or two days and would be centered around the Green Zone.” He added: “I suspect we will be going back. It probably won’t before Iowa, realistically speaking.” The Iowa caucuses are scheduled for Jan. 3.
(Mrs. Clinton has been to Iraq three times, her aides said.)
Mr. Obama has implored voters to consider his judgment in foreign policy, reminding audiences at political rallies and in television commercials that he spoke out against the Iraq war from the beginning, two years before he was elected to the Senate. That judgment, he said, would be carried over to selecting people to fill his administration.
He said his views were shaped by his foreign policy advisers, including Richard Danzig, who was Navy secretary under President Bill Clinton; Anthony Lake, a national security adviser in the Clinton administration; Susan E. Rice, an assistant secretary of state for African affairs under Mr. Clinton; Scott Gration, a retired Air Force major general; and Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, now retired, a former chief of staff of the Air Force.
Asked whom he would appoint as defense secretary or to important national security positions, Mr. Obama said he would consider “the best person, regardless of party.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21586430/
[/size]

pull the troops home......nuff said

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Sorry, reasoning with Iran's people might be one thing, but reasoning with Iran's warped government is completely different. The last thing we should do is try and 'strike a deal' with a corrupt government that is bent on killing all 'infidels' from the west. If anything, we should topple the Iranian government and give the country back to the people.

NEXT!

I'm against a war happening. They should just get the leaders out (Khamenei and Ahmadinejad) and bring back the prince.

 

[The Original Bamfer]

Don't tell Asteroid-Man.

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

With these intentions from Obama,i doubt he will be America's next President.

 

[omid17]

You wanna fix Iran? Do the same thing you did to make it how it is now. Exile the leader now and bring in the old leader (the heir to the original throne)

 

[EdRyder]

You know,.... I keep asking myself the same question when it comes to Iran ,..and Il pose to you all:
Isnt this Israels problem?
I mean,if they somehow miraculously learned to enrich uranium,..wouldnt Israel just bomb the **** out of em the next day?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Sorry, reasoning with Iran's people might be one thing, but reasoning with Iran's warped government is completely different. The last thing we should do is try and 'strike a deal' with a corrupt government that is bent on killing all 'infidels' from the west. If anything, we should topple the Iranian government and give the country back to the people.

NEXT!

yeah, that usually fixes everything up.

 

[PemLam]

You know,.... I keep asking myself the same question when it comes to Iran ,..and Il pose to you all:
Isnt this Israels problem?
I mean,if they somehow miraculously learned to enrich uranium,..wouldnt Israel just bomb the **** out of em the next day?

Yeah, they would...which is EXACTLY what the US would like to avoid...Israel nuking everyone around them. Our economy and the rest of the free worlds economies go down the friggin toilet.

 

[Addendum]

we should topple the Iranian government and give the country back to the people.

Since we did a super job of it in Iraq

 

[PemLam]

pull the troops home......nuff said

Amen.

 

[omid17]

Since we did a super job of it in Iraq

true but iranians are different, iraqis are still fighting for the shiites and sunnis ****

 

[Shoemeister]

Politics suck. So does Obama. I need another beer.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm all in favor of diplomacy over war, but Obama is completely wrong with his approach.

Economic incentives are not going to work. We've tried the very same thing with North Korea under Clinton they didn't work. Bush is doing the very same thing, I'm willing to bet that those will fail. And Obama doing the same for Iran will fail too, especially since Iran has Russia's backing.

Another reason for me to think that he shouldn't be President.

 

[zanos]

That's dumb. The smart thing to do is to bring back the old regime but with a dictator of our own choosing. It's the only way to keep the peace over there.

 

[EdRyder]

Yeah, they would...which is EXACTLY what the US would like to avoid...Israel nuking everyone around them. Our economy and the rest of the free worlds economies go down the friggin toilet.

Yeah but ,I just get that feeling like certain entities in Washington want to prop Iran up as if its the next big bad wolf like they did Iraq.Its like its next on the list of phantom menace /post cold war targets.

When exactly could Iran learn how to enrich uranium?
Thats the biggest joke of all right there! Ahmadinejad's whole game here is to play to his base!They cant possibly be anywhere close to crackin the secret ,and they aint gonna be for the next thirty years! When he gets on stage and plays "defiant" its all hot air!You know it ,I know it ,and anyone who knows jack about squat in this administration knows it.
If he was really trying to pursue it he wouldn't get on his soapbox
Its stale already,...Hell, we had to give it to India because they couldn't figure it out for sixty years,...and they gave us Mango's in return

You want to avoid a conflict? Then you should be willing to engage in Diplomacy-Plain and simple.You certainly shouldn't put any contingency in there before you invite them to the table
So why? Why is this the new middle east wedge issue? Its Saddam's WMDs all over again,..Now on tour!

 

[R0rschach]

Wow most of you guys are so retared, no wonder America is such a **** hole.

 

[TBadora]

Those who still argue that the main stream media is truthful, consider this video:

http://wcbstv.com/video/[email protected]

Why is this shocking? Up until now, we are still being led to believe that Ahmadinejad hates Jews. Clearly we are not being told the whole story. Why hasn't this video been well-circulated? Are there people out there who are trying to push us into seeing just one side of the story?

 

[Mr. Socko]

Trying to pronounce his name...


Mah-mood Ah-ma-de-ne-jah-dee

 

[TBadora]

If you turn the 'dee' into 'd' I think it be perfect pronunciation. I think.