You are a raving lunatic.
Read the reports about Iran … moving in the direction to transitional government. Those are not lunatics writing that.
So many idiots here can’t get into something that deep. How about you?
Snappy comeback. You are at the “I know you are but what am I?” stage of name calling. Outstanding.
What exactly is the point you have been trying (and failing) to make?
Well, since I can’t understand what you are even bitching about, I will wait until someone comes along and articulates what the hell your problem seems to be.
It goes back to this:
I was answering that question with a couple of highly relevant news reports. Here, I’ll post half of it, since taking a few minutes to read something was too burdensome.
Iran can give up Assad - easily. That was my point to BG.
Correction above:
Have you paid attention to the US / Russian transition plan?? -Ntfldbw
[/QUOTE]
Iran?
Regards,
Shodan
He was Fooled by W in 2002 and has been trying to justify it ever since. It’s amazing how everyone in the world is wrong except for him. We’re so lucky to be exposed to his insights.
The man who says I was fooled wrote on this forum right after it started that Bush was justified to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein didn’t cooperate with UN inspectors,
That is being fooled by Bush big time and it is on the record here.
Not going to revisit all the crap we went over with you in this thread.
Anyone interested enough can read all 20+ pages of you being the idiot that you are.
[poking with stick]
I don’t know… I don’t think Saddam did cooperate, but I’m unclear on the time frame. But, yeah, GW was pseudo-spasmodically justified in everything he did (especially pre-emptively clearing that brush down by the creek).
[/poking with stick]
That’s it? That was your point for posting this? If that’s it, you have made a mess out of making that point. As far as I could tell, you were just looking to slam republicans and nuzzle Obama’s balls.
What fascinates me is that you don’t really care what is happening in the world as much as you care about what everyone thinks of your man Obama (they must love him like you do) and republicans (they must hate and distrust them, as you do). Does it matter to you if Obama is actually doing the right thing, regardless of what party may agree with his behavior?
So, you “can’t wait” to see how Obama’s enemies figure out how to make an issue out of potentially successful diplomacy is compared to using force… Does that sum it up?
I think I will go with this explanation instead, as it makes much more sense to me. I am tired of spending time trying to understand what your posts are supposed to mean. And I am apparently not alone… like many people, I find your posts incoherent.
I quit this thread. I’ve wasted precious time in this thread, time I will never get back. No more from me.
Of course it matters. Do you have time between your accusations of "loving Obama’ to opine if you believe Obama is doing the right thing with regard to diplomacy with Iran?
Do you think Obama did the right thing that resulted in the chemical weapons arsenal being dismantled in Syria?
That’s a good comeback. Maybe in another month and a half you can think of another couple of sentences.
He’s been back a week, and picked up a warning already. I think he better do it faster than that.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, overall, as I said in a discussion on another board;
If McCain had been elected in 2008;
We’d still have troops in Iraq.
We’d continue to be in Afghanistan and likely not working on winding it down.
We’d be at war with Iran.
Many thousands of Americans would be dead who are not now.
Gas would be over $5 a gallon instead of hovering around $3.
If Romney had been elected in 2012;
It’s questionable where we’d be vis Afghanistan. Republicans probably would have conspired to remove Karzai and we’d have an even bigger mess on our hands.
We’d likely be at war with Iran.
Anyone’s guess with Syria, but I bet the right wing chicken hawks would say ‘Invade!’
Thousands of Americans would be dead who are not now.
Gas would be over $5 a gallon instead of hovering around $3.
Diplomacy with Iran? Oh hell yeah. The most insane bullshit coming out of the right these days is the idea that negotiation with anyone (whether the Democrats or Iran) is Treason!, weakness and absolutely forbidden.
NotFooledbyW, doesn’t it say anything to you that the French had to be the wrench in the works?
There’s nothing wrong with the administration negotiating with Iran. But the negotiation has to have a goal(ending Iranian enrichment), and if Iran isn’t willing to consider ending enrichment, then negotiations must fail. Seems like the US was all set to make a deal that gave us nothing substantial in return for reducing sanctions, and the French took a tough stance and scuttled the deal. The French are right in this case. Any deal that does not end enrichment is a suckers’ deal.
This is completely 100% backwards and wrong. For a site claiming to fight ignorance you guys sure like to spread it around and keep it going.
“Wrong” in the sense that it’s based on things the candidates said during their campaigns?
Well, we’ll find out. While I agree that no harm can come from negotiations, they can be a useless timewaster. If this ends up being a big nothingburger, it demonstrates the critics right, and the critics aren’t just coming from the right. Lots of skepticism on the Democratic side of the aisle about this too, and even the French Socialists think it’s a suckers’ game.