2016 election character or issues - middle east

[Guest]

Again, Sanders and Clinton aren't going to change President Obama's current policies. It has been reported that the present Iran p5 plus one agreement will stand as is. The Republicans don't have enough votes to override the president's veto.

The current political nonsense that is going on concerning the Iran agreement is nothing more than a side show. Making reference to Neville Chamberlin's appeasement to Hitler is nonsense. If England went to war with Germany in 1938, they would have got their ass kicked. Germany was ready for war. England wasn't.

We have been ready for and participated in wars all to often, since the 50's We are a super power. Iran isn't. There is nothing holding us to the agreement, if Iran cheats. They cheat, and their nuclear sites are history, if not by us by Israel, and they know it.

Maybe now that Turkey has gotten involved against ISIS, the other Arab countries in the region will do the same.

Again, you are more familiar with the Republicans that I. Are Trump, Bush, Walker, or Kasich hawks, and will they send our ground troops against ISIS as more than just advisors?

[Guest]

Again, Sanders and Clinton aren't going to change President Obama's current policies. It has been reported that the present Iran p5 plus one agreement will stand as is. The Republicans don't have enough votes to override the president's veto.

The current political nonsense that is going on concerning the Iran agreement is nothing more than a side show. Making reference to Neville Chamberlin's appeasement to Hitler is nonsense. If England went to war with Germany in 1938, they would have got their ass kicked. Germany was ready for war. England wasn't.

We have been ready for and participated in wars all to often, since the 50's We are a super power. Iran isn't. There is nothing holding us to the agreement, if Iran cheats. They cheat, and their nuclear sites are history, if not by us by Israel, and they know it.

Maybe now that Turkey has gotten involved against ISIS, the other Arab countries in the region will do the same.

Again, you are more familiar with the Republicans that I. Are Trump, Bush, Walker, or Kasich hawks, and will they send our ground troops against ISIS as more than just advisors?

Not sure what you mean by "you are more familiar with the Republicans that I" and can only make assumptions, but it appears you are a Democrat who is not familiar with anything Republican which is a bit upsetting that you do not even consider another viewpoint, but...

Having said that, my own personal concerns and as much as you would like someone to speak for the candidates, we cannot......I am concerned regarding the IRAN situation...

....nuclear proliferation in the ME as a result. Israel already has the capabilities; Saudi Arabia has said they will build up arms, and more will join. Since it is not a known factor that Iran WILL have nuclear capabilities and the only thing unknown is the time frame, then it would be in their best interest to build up their own supply as Iran is the leading state that sponsors terrorism in the region.

....They have not promised to back off in their activities surrounding terrorism. Fact is they now will have use of ICBM's and other arms plus a lot of cash. Russia has already started talking to them about supplying them with arms and have said so publicly. We know how they feel about our country and our interests thus I can only assume more trouble in the mideast as a result of this deal.

You also ignored all the problems in the ME.....

.....Where is our coalition of 60 countries ?
.....How about Libya
.....What about Syria

You surely are aware of all the looming problems there. Libya is our fault, Yemen is our fault. A continuation of those same kind of policies will only lead to more failures. I assume since you did not address Syria that you feel it will just work out ??? We have said a lot and did very little and I sure hope you do not feel we should continue in that vein.

You do not mention ISIS which according to a new report I saw this week, is growing in might despite a few setbacks. I am concerned about our coalition and where it is in this fight.

Just a few notes on your post.

[Guest]

I am not a Democrat. I am an Independent. The only political news program that I watch on a regular basis is Morning Joe. If you take a look at the time I posted the four 2016 threads, I am having a hard time falling asleep. So, I haven't even been watching Morning Joe much lately. Again, is the political forum purpose to inform or just a place to blow off steam, and attack anyone that doesn't agree with you.

Once again have you ever started a post that doesn't attack me in the first paragraph.

John Kerry, and the P5 plus one made it clear that the Iran agreement sole purpose at this time was to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It has nothing to do with supporting terrorism.

I am a little confused. Why can't you put forward what Republican's candidates, that have a chance at the nomination, have stated concerning the ME. That is not putting words in their mouth. Don't bother answering that. I am sure it will be major topic in the Aug. 6th debate.

I tried to start a civil conversation concerning the current major issues, but that is impossible here.

[Guest]

I missed the comment about Syria. ISIS is in both Iran, and Syria. Turkey coming into the fray means that they are going after ISIS in Syria. Turkey giving the US air Force access to several airfields means that they know ISIS targets in Syria are fair game.

I don't think Libya is considered a Middle East country. It is an African country. Is it a problem? You damn right it is. Are we going to repeat the problem in Syria by getting rid of the dictator as we did in Libya? Who knows?

Where is our coalition of the 60 countries? Where they usually on the sidelines hoping we will do their work for them.

[Guest]

I am not a Democrat. I am an Independent. The only political news program that I watch on a regular basis is Morning Joe. If you take a look at the time I posted the four 2016 threads, I am having a hard time falling asleep. So, I haven't even been watching Morning Joe much lately. Again, is the political forum purpose to inform or just a place to blow off steam, and attack anyone that doesn't agree with you.

Once again have you ever started a post that doesn't attack me in the first paragraph.

John Kerry, and the P5 plus one made it clear that the Iran agreement sole purpose at this time was to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It has nothing to do with supporting terrorism.

I am a little confused. Why can't you put forward what Republican's candidates, that have a chance at the nomination, have stated concerning the ME. That is not putting words in their mouth. Don't bother answering that. I am sure it will be major topic in the Aug. 6th debate.

I tried to start a civil conversation concerning the current major issues, but that is impossible here.

Ok...will make you happy and bow out of your "conversation".

I am not stupid....your posts are worded to "seem" objective but actually a shot across the bow at the Republicans. Since their are 21 or so candidates and they are involved in a real primary, I am not putting much real stock in what they say and even though you keep calling for "us" to explain the Republican side to you, your purpose is clear. I prefer people who are open, both to new thoughts and open about how they feel about things.

I will bow out and allow you to talk to whomever. My comments that you take as attacks were simply remarks to let you know your purpose is clear.

[Guest]

I am not a Democrat. I am an Independent. The only political news program that I watch on a regular basis is Morning Joe. If you take a look at the time I posted the four 2016 threads, I am having a hard time falling asleep. So, I haven't even been watching Morning Joe much lately. Again, is the political forum purpose to inform or just a place to blow off steam, and attack anyone that doesn't agree with you.

Once again have you ever started a post that doesn't attack me in the first paragraph.

John Kerry, and the P5 plus one made it clear that the Iran agreement sole purpose at this time was to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It has nothing to do with supporting terrorism.

I am a little confused. Why can't you put forward what Republican's candidates, that have a chance at the nomination, have stated concerning the ME. That is not putting words in their mouth. Don't bother answering that. I am sure it will be major topic in the Aug. 6th debate.

I tried to start a civil conversation concerning the current major issues, but that is impossible here.

1. The coalition of 60 countries is still used by this administration as currently as yesterday by Josh Earnest, although it does not exist in reality.

2. We, the USA allowed two countries, at least to be destroyed. Libya and Yemen and yet we still call them each a success.

3. We allowed the situation in Syria to compound over years with false words and promises. I am not saying what we should have done, but never saw the USA ignore the gassing of children in the streets, then complain and say stop it...draw a red line and then just ignore them.

4. I honestly am not smart enough to analyze the IRAN deal, but I do know that we, the USA went in with public proclamations about the minimum, about what is a must and came out a loser in each and every point. Either they are better negotiations or we had no idea of what we were talking about in the first place.
I might add that the WH proclaiming that the ONLY...and that is what the President says over and over...the ONLY alternative is war is simply irresponsible.

5. Kerry and his group made a lot of claims...no ICBMs but they got them. Then he and the President went to the UN immediately in order to apply more pressure to our congress....PURE POLITICS and of course he now claims the other side is playing politics.

6. I did not attack you at all here

7. I do not speak for the Republican party as you keep asking folks to do. Anyone who says they speak for any party is a fool.

[Guest]

Ok...will make you happy and bow out of your "conversation".

I am not stupid....your posts are worded to "seem" objective but actually a shot across the bow at the Republicans. Since their are 21 or so candidates and they are involved in a real primary, I am not putting much real stock in what they say and even though you keep calling for "us" to explain the Republican side to you, your purpose is clear. I prefer people who are open, both to new thoughts and open about how they feel about things.

I will bow out and allow you to talk to whomever. My comments that you take as attacks were simply remarks to let you know your purpose is clear.

I agree with you.

I must have a misunderstanding of the theme of the thread. I thought it was supposed to be regarding the presidential candidates.
I am interested in how each would handle foreign policy, especially the Democrat candidates.
Right now, anyone should be better at foreign policy than what is currently running things. I consider the Iran deal a total failure. Not one good thing happened and as far as I am concerned a bad deal is worst than NO DEAL.

Before the liberal comes back with a retort about war, please go back and consider who was in charge during most of our previous wars, and the amount of lives lost. We had over ten thousand TIMES (X) the losses in Vietnam than in Iraq. Not trying to trivialize any war losses, just showing how better we are at wars over a period of time. We had almost equal losses in Korea, more killed in WWII than Korea, more in WWI than WWII. Actually, we lost as many in one battle during the civil war as we did in Vietnam. I am just suggesting that even though there may be need to go to war, we have vastly improved to the point of having less lost lives over the decades. Don't get me wrong, I dislike wars even though I have served in Vietnam, Dessert Storm and Iraqi freedom. I considered it my duty, not boasting.

In my opinion, Hillary would not do much better dealing with Iran than Obama did. But, we don't know because she never answers questions. Kerry is an idiot puppet and does what he is told to do, including following Fonda in protesting at the White House during Vietnam. I haven't heard too much from Sanders regarding Iran, but that may be due to not bothering to Google his statements on the subject. I do think that Biden has the best chance of securing the Democrat nomination for his party. No big controversy or stigma surrounds him, other than his working with Obama. And many wouldn't hold that against him. So did Hillary.

We all know that almost anyone running for office will tell you what you want to hear to get the vote. About the only one that you can really count on to be proactive is Trump, and that is kind of scary to some of us. Hopefully, he just says things to stir the pot, and isn't as reckless as his rhetoric.

My interest lately, has been Kasich. I was hoping that he would throw his hat into the ring and now that he has, I am listening to see what he has to say. Right now, he sounds like the type on non-divisive leader we may need. He seems to use more logic in his leading than hard right. He seems more pragmatic. Unlike Obama, who is either incredibly stupid and lacks common sense, or just blatantly attempting to damage America with his socialist ideology.

This is my opinion and I reserve the right to modify it at any given time :spoken:

[Guest]

I agree with you.

I must have a misunderstanding of the theme of the thread. I thought it was supposed to be regarding the presidential candidates.
I am interested in how each would handle foreign policy, especially the Democrat candidates.
Right now, anyone should be better at foreign policy than what is currently running things. I consider the Iran deal a total failure. Not one good thing happened and as far as I am concerned a bad deal is worst than NO DEAL.

Before the liberal comes back with a retort about war, please go back and consider who was in charge during most of our previous wars, and the amount of lives lost. We had over ten thousand TIMES (X) the losses in Vietnam than in Iraq. Not trying to trivialize any war losses, just showing how better we are at wars over a period of time. We had almost equal losses in Korea, more killed in WWII than Korea, more in WWI than WWII. Actually, we lost as many in one battle during the civil war as we did in Vietnam. I am just suggesting that even though there may be need to go to war, we have vastly improved to the point of having less lost lives over the decades. Don't get me wrong, I dislike wars even though I have served in Vietnam, Dessert Storm and Iraqi freedom. I considered it my duty, not boasting.

In my opinion, Hillary would not do much better dealing with Iran than Obama did. But, we don't know because she never answers questions. Kerry is an idiot puppet and does what he is told to do, including following Fonda in protesting at the White House during Vietnam. I haven't heard too much from Sanders regarding Iran, but that may be due to not bothering to Google his statements on the subject. I do think that Biden has the best chance of securing the Democrat nomination for his party. No big controversy or stigma surrounds him, other than his working with Obama. And many wouldn't hold that against him. So did Hillary.

We all know that almost anyone running for office will tell you what you want to hear to get the vote. About the only one that you can really count on to be proactive is Trump, and that is kind of scary to some of us. Hopefully, he just says things to stir the pot, and isn't as reckless as his rhetoric.

My interest lately, has been Kasich. I was hoping that he would throw his hat into the ring and now that he has, I am listening to see what he has to say. Right now, he sounds like the type on non-divisive leader we may need. He seems to use more logic in his leading than hard right. He seems more pragmatic. Unlike Obama, who is either incredibly stupid and lacks common sense, or just blatantly attempting to damage America with his socialist ideology.

This is my opinion and I reserve the right to modify it at any given time :spoken:

Well, I am changing one part. I don't know what I was thinking when I said "ten thousand times" the deaths in Vietnam. It was more like about 15 times the deaths. I was probably thinking ten times and inadvertently typed the thousand for some reason. :doh: