Posted on Oct 1, 2015
Do You Agree With Obama That We Can Have Relations With Iran?
8.78K
54
132
5
5
0
Posted in these groups: 
Iran
Foreign Policy
Iran Foreign Policy
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 32
6
6
0
I just find it hard that any intelligent person can think we can even entertain the idea.
It would be like walking up to a person you don't know and you say, "Hello." He returns with, "Fuck you!" You return 10 minutes later and you say, "I am sorry. I think I may have done something wrong to offend you." To which this person responds with, "FUCK YOU and your mother too!" You again return 10 minutes later and you say, "I am not sure why you are so angry at me?" He then responds by invading your embassy, holding 52 hostages for 444 days.
Anybody feel me?
It would be like walking up to a person you don't know and you say, "Hello." He returns with, "Fuck you!" You return 10 minutes later and you say, "I am sorry. I think I may have done something wrong to offend you." To which this person responds with, "FUCK YOU and your mother too!" You again return 10 minutes later and you say, "I am not sure why you are so angry at me?" He then responds by invading your embassy, holding 52 hostages for 444 days.
Anybody feel me?
(6)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
SGT William Howell - Obama defends his positions to be aired on 60 minutes this Sunday night with Steve Kroft who quizzed him about Iran, Russia and Syria This will be interesting I guess??
(2)
(0)
SGT William Howell
Sgt Tom Cunnally Of all the news hacks out there (On the left and right) and horrible reporting skills that most reporters have, 60 Minutes has always been responsible and unbiased. I hope that rings true.
I like to see you and Walt Capt Walter Miller spare. Walt and I almost never see eye to eye on anything, but I do enjoy the fact that he responds and will go toe to toe. I saw Ben Carson the other day at a rally and the thing that I took away from it that I will use the rest of my life is, "If two people agree on everything, one of them is not needed".
I like to see you and Walt Capt Walter Miller spare. Walt and I almost never see eye to eye on anything, but I do enjoy the fact that he responds and will go toe to toe. I saw Ben Carson the other day at a rally and the thing that I took away from it that I will use the rest of my life is, "If two people agree on everything, one of them is not needed".
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
Sounds like Dr. Carson favors eugenics.
The Conscience of the King
"The Conscience of the King" is an episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek. It is episode number 13, production number 13, and aired on December 8, 1966. It was written by Barry Trivers and directed by Gerd Oswald.
The episode takes its title from the concluding lines of Act II of Hamlet: "The play's the thing/Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."[1]
In this episode, Captain Kirk crosses paths with an actor suspected of having been a mass-murdering dictator many years before."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_the_King
Walt
The Conscience of the King
"The Conscience of the King" is an episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek. It is episode number 13, production number 13, and aired on December 8, 1966. It was written by Barry Trivers and directed by Gerd Oswald.
The episode takes its title from the concluding lines of Act II of Hamlet: "The play's the thing/Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."[1]
In this episode, Captain Kirk crosses paths with an actor suspected of having been a mass-murdering dictator many years before."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conscience_of_the_King
Walt
The Conscience of the King - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Conscience of the King" is an episode of the science fiction television series Star Trek. It is episode number 13, production number 13, and aired on December 8, 1966. It was written by Barry Trivers and directed by Gerd Oswald.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Sgt Tom Cunnally - for me ... 60 min already down the drain ... the glory days of break the shell for truth in 60 min is long passed.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Anyone can have relations with anyone. I am stuck in relations with my ex. Wouldn't advise it, but we are definitely in relations. It is very much a relationship like those with a country that prays for our death and is willing to ally with anyone to meet that goal. The LAST thing I would do is to arm her.
(5)
(0)
PO2 David L. Parker
History has proven that we cannot because a relationship requires full trust. Anyone or any country that shouts on the streets death to America is not someone we need to have a relationship with; albeit, keeping your friends close and your enemies closer does produce a valid truth. We should not go blindly into this and be prepared to act quickly and decisively should they go the wrong direction. Winston Churchhill said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." I see no value in a relationship with these hate mongers but we need to be right on their ass to make sure they are not attempting to undermine our great country or kill our people.
(0)
(0)
SGT William Howell
PO2 David L. Parker I believe in the, "Keep your friends close, bomb the shit out of your enemies to the point that they are erased from the earth."
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I believe that at the current time the answer is no. We are still missing several journalists that need to the point of any conversation with Iran
(4)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Capt Walter Miller - And your point is what?? That Obama doesn't want relations with Iran?? He said the Iran Deal is a step in the direction to have relations with Iran... But if you know what Obama wants let us know...
WASHINGTON—
In his Nowruz message to the Iranian people, U.S. President Barack Obama called for an end to decades of mutual mistrust and fear. As the Iranians mark their new year, six world powers prepare to wrap up talks on Iran's nuclear program.
A deal would ensure Tehran's nuclear technology can only be used for peaceful purposes in exchange for the easing of economic sanctions against Iran.
President Obama believes Iran has a historic opportunity to join the international community. He urged Tehran to accept the deal which could lead to greater opportunities for Iranian people.
"More trade and ties with the world. More foreign investment and jobs, including for young Iranians," he said. "More cultural exchanges and chances for Iranian students to travel abroad. More partnerships in areas like science and technology and innovation. In other words, a nuclear deal now can help open the door to a brighter future for you - the Iranian people."
But Iran must first prove its nuclear program is not a threat, said U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.
"We want to see Iran become a viable member of the community of nations. We want it to give up terror. We want it to put Hezbollah out of commission. There's no need for a Hamas or Quds force. We want it to be a respectable nation that can open up and improve its economy and its social life for its people. Now, you can't do that with all the conflict that's going on," she said.
Israel is fiercely opposed to a deal with Iran, citing its links with terrorist groups. Some U.S. lawmakers also criticize the current talks with Iran.
"I would think that ideally, any negotiations with Iran would be much more encompassing. And yes, the fact that they do support Hezbollah, the fact that they are so active in Iraq, the fact that they basically have hit teams all around the world, including the Quds force, the ones that actually carry out the bombing assassinations here in Washington D.C," said Representative Peter King, Republican from New Jersey.
But others question why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects any talks with Iran.
"I do not trust in war as the best way to protect our families and though he denied it, that's really the alternative that he is advancing. We need to seek a resolution eventually of all of our differences with Iran, that cannot be done in this agreement," said representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat from Texas.
The Obama administration has acknowledged that it has many concerns regarding Iran, but they cannot all be resolved during the current talks.
"We try to keep the P5+1 talks on the nuclear issue with Iran very separate from all the other issues where we have concerns about Iranian influence whether it's support for Hezbollah, whether it's interference in Syria. We really need to address these issues separately," said Marie Harf, a State Department spokesperson.
The administration also has pointed out that the talks with Iran involve five other major world powers. On Wednesday they will try to break an impasse over sensitive nuclear research and lifting of sanctions before the end-of-March deadline for the talks.
Print
Share:
WASHINGTON—
In his Nowruz message to the Iranian people, U.S. President Barack Obama called for an end to decades of mutual mistrust and fear. As the Iranians mark their new year, six world powers prepare to wrap up talks on Iran's nuclear program.
A deal would ensure Tehran's nuclear technology can only be used for peaceful purposes in exchange for the easing of economic sanctions against Iran.
President Obama believes Iran has a historic opportunity to join the international community. He urged Tehran to accept the deal which could lead to greater opportunities for Iranian people.
"More trade and ties with the world. More foreign investment and jobs, including for young Iranians," he said. "More cultural exchanges and chances for Iranian students to travel abroad. More partnerships in areas like science and technology and innovation. In other words, a nuclear deal now can help open the door to a brighter future for you - the Iranian people."
But Iran must first prove its nuclear program is not a threat, said U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.
"We want to see Iran become a viable member of the community of nations. We want it to give up terror. We want it to put Hezbollah out of commission. There's no need for a Hamas or Quds force. We want it to be a respectable nation that can open up and improve its economy and its social life for its people. Now, you can't do that with all the conflict that's going on," she said.
Israel is fiercely opposed to a deal with Iran, citing its links with terrorist groups. Some U.S. lawmakers also criticize the current talks with Iran.
"I would think that ideally, any negotiations with Iran would be much more encompassing. And yes, the fact that they do support Hezbollah, the fact that they are so active in Iraq, the fact that they basically have hit teams all around the world, including the Quds force, the ones that actually carry out the bombing assassinations here in Washington D.C," said Representative Peter King, Republican from New Jersey.
But others question why Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects any talks with Iran.
"I do not trust in war as the best way to protect our families and though he denied it, that's really the alternative that he is advancing. We need to seek a resolution eventually of all of our differences with Iran, that cannot be done in this agreement," said representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat from Texas.
The Obama administration has acknowledged that it has many concerns regarding Iran, but they cannot all be resolved during the current talks.
"We try to keep the P5+1 talks on the nuclear issue with Iran very separate from all the other issues where we have concerns about Iranian influence whether it's support for Hezbollah, whether it's interference in Syria. We really need to address these issues separately," said Marie Harf, a State Department spokesperson.
The administration also has pointed out that the talks with Iran involve five other major world powers. On Wednesday they will try to break an impasse over sensitive nuclear research and lifting of sanctions before the end-of-March deadline for the talks.
Share:
(1)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Capt Walter Miller -From the time of the United States coming on to world stage about 1900, it was the policy of the US government to (not a line from a movie) not get involved in a land war in Asia. And if you notice, no large US force was engaged in Asia prior to 1950.
Bad Truman! Bad!
Walt
Capt Walter Miller
Notice also that Truman was a one term president. He couldn't get reelected on his own merits.
Walt
What about your BS that Harry Truman only served one term as President...or we were never engaged in Asia prior to 1950...?? You might want to turn off your Bullshit & stick to the facts ....Sir
Bad Truman! Bad!
Walt
Capt Walter Miller
Notice also that Truman was a one term president. He couldn't get reelected on his own merits.
Walt
What about your BS that Harry Truman only served one term as President...or we were never engaged in Asia prior to 1950...?? You might want to turn off your Bullshit & stick to the facts ....Sir
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
We could certainly have potentially combatant relations withe the current leadership of Iran Sgt Tom Cunnally. If the people rise up and overthrow the Mullah-led Shia Islamic theocracy then there would be a hope of reestablished relationship on a parallel with those we had with the regimes up until the time of Shah Pahlavi until 1979.
The Iranian/Persian culture and nation date back to Biblical times and have a history of periodic republics.
[Update] Iran has a rich and varied heritage and many of its people long to be much freer than they are. The advent of widespread cheap wireless communications spread communications throughout the young and young at heart at a time when the Iranian Secret Sate Police maintained a network of informants and encouraged families tom spy on one another and their neighbors [very similar to what had been going on in Iraq during the days of Saddam Hussein]
Iran has a history of some freedom which can be contrasted with those nearby nations created after WWI which have caused so much problems recently - Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. These nations have no history of democracy.
The Iranian/Persian culture and nation date back to Biblical times and have a history of periodic republics.
[Update] Iran has a rich and varied heritage and many of its people long to be much freer than they are. The advent of widespread cheap wireless communications spread communications throughout the young and young at heart at a time when the Iranian Secret Sate Police maintained a network of informants and encouraged families tom spy on one another and their neighbors [very similar to what had been going on in Iraq during the days of Saddam Hussein]
Iran has a history of some freedom which can be contrasted with those nearby nations created after WWI which have caused so much problems recently - Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. These nations have no history of democracy.
(3)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
The link doesn't suggest that President Obama expects 'normal' relations with Iran or even wants them.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
I don't have to know what the president wants in order to say that this article you quoted doesn't suggest he wants normal relations.
He probably does. That would be nice, right?
Walt
He probably does. That would be nice, right?
Walt
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Capt Walter Miller - The article points out why relations with Iran are not going to happen as Obama implied in his speech at the UN.. It was also part of his Salesmanship as he went around the country talking about the Iran Nuclear Agreement which most of the country opposes including members of his own party.. Why?? Because he is weak and clueless would be my opinion..
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
MSG Alfred Aguilar
OK then, replace Vietnam with Germany, Japan, ourselves (the Civil War). At some point you point you have to move beyond a governments ideology if what you have tried has not worked to bring about a situation that provides stability for the common people of both countries. At the present time, I don't see that happening anytime soon however, we should be moving in that direction.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
MSG Alfred Aguilar - How about we concentrate on Iran and Russia which is much more important these days.. Obama is going to be on 60 Minutes this Sunday and Steve Kroft is going to quiz him about the relations with them.. We should revisit this topic again next week and see if Obama has changed his mind again ?????????
(0)
(0)
MSG Alfred Aguilar
The original question was focused on weather or not we should normalize relations with Iran. If we do take steps toward normalization it will allow us to have eyes on the ground. Right now that is not the case. Russian involvement does not change that (it just complicates matters). I subscribe to Ronald Reagan's philosophy "trust but verify".
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Relations does not mean friends.
We maintained relations with the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact countries, China... Had we not, the risk of war would have been much greater. I think we can have a much greater influence over Iran if we do have diplomatic relations instead of sending third-grade notes through the Swiss or Guatemalans.
We maintained relations with the Soviet Union, Warsaw Pact countries, China... Had we not, the risk of war would have been much greater. I think we can have a much greater influence over Iran if we do have diplomatic relations instead of sending third-grade notes through the Swiss or Guatemalans.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Capt Walter Miller - Who is railing about attacking Iran & railing about the national debt... I read this discussion & don't see any comments to support your claim..
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller I think you picked the wrong comment. This comment thread was about avoiding war with Iran. Go troll somewhere else.
(1)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
This thread was attacking President Obama for seeking 'normal' relations with Iran although that has not been something he has suggested was possible.
Walt
Walt
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Capt Walter Miller But you chose to respond on the comment thread that says we should have relations. Reading 101
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Although a force on force war would interesting, I think we fail to see what the President sees along with the top brass. Like I said before a force on force war would be interesting but lets look at the grander scheme of things
1. Iran's population. Although I don't have numbers they have an unemployment rate somewhere in the area of 40-50%. The overall population is 75% male (15-75 yrs old). So if war breaks out with the Great Satan (US), we've just mobilized an entire country that will fight for their home. Remember we aren't fighting Iraqis.
And let's not forget how World War I & II started. If Iran attacks directly then yes I can see that. But if we go to war with Iran then by formal treaties it has signed, then we go to war with Russia & China. Then Great Britain along with NATO jumps in to back us up and now the Eastern Europe front is now on high up against Russia and then Ukraine is now at the forefront and 2 SCR just went from training exercises to full on combat.
Remember our business is war. But the civilian side of our country has said when is the war in the Middle East going to be over? The President says there's a chance we can reach peace with Iran. Why? Because we cannot set sustain stability operations in Iran. The country is too big, the population is formidable within itself, major cities are too spread out (Tehran is literally in middle of the country), when was the last time we dealt with an opponent that actually has a formidable military (army, navy, Air Force)? Will the Shia population of Iraq mobilize and align with their Iranain brothers albeit they're Persian Arabs? Will that set off another Iraqi civil war? Will that help propel ISIS? Or will Al-Qaeda make a comeback? How does it translate for forces still in Afghanistan?
My point is the President maybe posing a crazy idea but if you know anything about politics and strategy, then you know that's the solution that works everyone. Why? Because if World War III breaks out, that's the end game because MAD will be reached, either on our end or in retaliation.
1. Iran's population. Although I don't have numbers they have an unemployment rate somewhere in the area of 40-50%. The overall population is 75% male (15-75 yrs old). So if war breaks out with the Great Satan (US), we've just mobilized an entire country that will fight for their home. Remember we aren't fighting Iraqis.
And let's not forget how World War I & II started. If Iran attacks directly then yes I can see that. But if we go to war with Iran then by formal treaties it has signed, then we go to war with Russia & China. Then Great Britain along with NATO jumps in to back us up and now the Eastern Europe front is now on high up against Russia and then Ukraine is now at the forefront and 2 SCR just went from training exercises to full on combat.
Remember our business is war. But the civilian side of our country has said when is the war in the Middle East going to be over? The President says there's a chance we can reach peace with Iran. Why? Because we cannot set sustain stability operations in Iran. The country is too big, the population is formidable within itself, major cities are too spread out (Tehran is literally in middle of the country), when was the last time we dealt with an opponent that actually has a formidable military (army, navy, Air Force)? Will the Shia population of Iraq mobilize and align with their Iranain brothers albeit they're Persian Arabs? Will that set off another Iraqi civil war? Will that help propel ISIS? Or will Al-Qaeda make a comeback? How does it translate for forces still in Afghanistan?
My point is the President maybe posing a crazy idea but if you know anything about politics and strategy, then you know that's the solution that works everyone. Why? Because if World War III breaks out, that's the end game because MAD will be reached, either on our end or in retaliation.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Good stuff Sgt Eashman but let me toss this out there for you to consider: I think Obama lives in a fantasy world from his Harvard's professor's chair..Do you agree that Putin has eaten Obama's lunch over Syria ?? Obama said he and Putin had an understanding that Putin would help to defeat ISIS. But instead Putin is trying to prop up Assad by bombing his opponents in Idlib & Hama where there are no ISIS troops. Russians even bombed the Syrian Fighters who the US Trained... Was this the fog or war or was it another example of Putin knowing that Obama just wags his finger at him and that is about all he will do..
So with that being said do you think it is possible that the Iranian Supreme will also eat Obamas' lunch....Obama is going to miss a lot of meals with so many of his foes eating his lunch ad nausea....IMHO..
So with that being said do you think it is possible that the Iranian Supreme will also eat Obamas' lunch....Obama is going to miss a lot of meals with so many of his foes eating his lunch ad nausea....IMHO..
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Obama wants everyone to get along no matter how misaligned the political perspectives. He is more interested in being the "first" in the history books regardless of the consequences. Any agreement with the Iranians will cause militant Sunni Islamist groups spawned by the Muslim Brotherhood - Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Islamic State, Boko Haram, al-Shabaab al-Mujahidin, Jebhat al Nusra,Hamas, and many other terror organizations in various parts of the world - to accuse the United States and Europe of strengthening the Shiite side. This will lead to increased Sunni terror in Europe and the United States. To me this is a clear misunderstanding of foreign policy in the region by Obama in the directions he has taking with Iran. If nothing else - in a delayed fashion - he has sanctioned the nuclear proliferation in the region by Iran - a country that has a history of practicing the doctrine of taqiyya. To me it seems he is more interested in trying to make amends with countries - Iran, Russia, Cuba and China - in which he feels we have wronged with previous policy. Fool hearty optimism that has lead to the downward spiral of the Middle East.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Your link doesn't suggest that President Obama expects 'normal' relations with Iran or even wants them.
Walt
Walt
(1)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Capt Walter Miller - Pragmatism is great if you teach at Harvard but not always if you are a Commander in Chief...I prefer an Idealist who was not a College Professor .for our Commander in Chief with years of experience in leadership roles..
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Capt Walter Miller - Obama is no Lincoln..
Lincoln tried to unite our nation while Obama has tried to divide this country with his partisanship rhetoric & finger pointing ad nausea.. Lincoln is one of our greatest presidents and Obama is among the worse even passing Carter
Lincoln tried to unite our nation while Obama has tried to divide this country with his partisanship rhetoric & finger pointing ad nausea.. Lincoln is one of our greatest presidents and Obama is among the worse even passing Carter
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
No, there is no way the U.S. can have relations with Iran. I would say maybe if you could separate the Islamic theocracy with democracy? On the surface, the U.S. and Iranian governments have much in common. A president who is popularly elected, a boisterous legislature, and a powerful judiciary. The obvious difference lies in the fact that Iran is an Islamic theocracy, and that one man, the Supreme Leader, exerts ideological and political control over a system dominated by clerics who shadow every major function of the state.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
The point is why would we want to have ANY relations with Iran, marginally or not?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
LTC (Join to see) - Thanx LTC...This discussion seemed to get off track ..My purpose is to discuss why would anyone agree with Obama's comments that he wants to have a relationship with Iran.. And the article I linked doesn't support that thesis because of the Iranians past history.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
You are welcome... I try and keep my personal bias out and stay on point with the discussion. Keep it framed and context straight and you can't go wrong? Famous last words - No?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google