President Obama made a good deal

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

I know you will ignore any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived notions, but for OTHERS reading this, who are open to actual facts, here you go:
http://www.historyandtheheadlines.ab...38&productid=8
"Boland Amendment (1982 and 1984)
Introduced by Edward Boland, chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, the Boland Amendment is actually two pieces of legislation that amend other U.S. laws. The first, passed by the U.S. Congress on December 21, 1982, banned funds from the budget being used by the federal government to aid the contras fighting a civil war against the leftist Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Congress was concerned about U.S. entanglements in the many conflicts raging in Central America during this period, particularly the involvement of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and thus passed the amendment to limit the CIA's input. Known as Boland I, it remained in effect until October 3, 1984, when it was replaced by an even stronger version of the law, known as Boland II. This second amendment prohibited the federal government from supplying any type of aid to the contras, either financial or otherwise. It remained in effect until December 5, 1985"

So.. was CONGRESS interfering with Presidential perogatives in running Foreign Policy there or not? And tell us how much BETTER it is for Democrats to do that, vs Republicans writing an OPEN LETTER, not passing a law, just writing a letter.. was more interference with the President than the Boland Amendment?

I don't know why I even ask those questions.. you won't answer or if you do, you'll deflect with name calling and the usual tripe that these threads devolve into. But at least you've been answered and shown the hypocrisy of the liberal Dems with their complaints about interfering in foreign affairs policy set by a "sitting President".

You've got one thing wrong right from the start. I do not have preconceived notions. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. Now, to the Boland Amendment. The first amendment was a rider attached to the Defense Appropriation Act. It was passed by the House 411-0. Now, a democrat authored the amendment, but when something passes 411-0, that's hardly a partisan vote.

I don't believe you and I have devolved into name calling. If I'm treated with respect, I try to reply in kind.

So, your question is was it right for it to be done then? You're assuming that each situation is the same and that's the fault in your reasoning. Something like this is not automatically right or wrong, regardless of when it's done. These actions are not taking place in a vacuum. At the time, in the early 80's, do you think we should have been aiding the leftist fighters of Nicaragua? I would say no.

Now, on to what Cotton did and how it's not exactly the same thing. Firstly, this is not about foreign aid. This is about negotiations, of which we are only one country. So not only is he shitting on us, but our partners in the talks. It's just a sign of disrespect on his part. The upper management of Iran doesn't need a refresher course on our government from a senator who's been in office three months. Most of their people went to college in the West, many in the US. They're well aware of our government and how treaties work. I think beyond what Cotton said, it was what he didn't say, but implied that made it even worse. The letter was worded and written as if was addressing a child. It contained veiled threats, etc. Overall, we're trying to get a deal done. Take off your political hat for just a moment and tell me honestly; when you are involved in negotiations such as these, is it your best play to do what he did and subjugate the office of the President, who is responsible for negotiating foreign affairs? How does it make us look? Like rank amateurs who are not all on the same page. Make no mistake, I am not for one side or the other. I'm for the truth. If the truth is bad for democrats, so be it. If it's bad for republicans, so be it.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

That's very astute reasoning. Somewhere on a college campus, they're studying a brain in a jar that most likely resembled that way of thinking. Trying to figure out how to breed out such ignorance.

It would appear that you are a eugenicist.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

That's a long way of saying I was right

Your first mistake was thinking you were correct. The rest don't matter after that.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

You've got one thing wrong right from the start. I do not have preconceived notions. I follow the evidence wherever it leads. Now, to the Boland Amendment. The first amendment was a rider attached to the Defense Appropriation Act. It was passed by the House 411-0. Now, a democrat authored the amendment, but when something passes 411-0, that's hardly a partisan vote.

I don't believe you and I have devolved into name calling. If I'm treated with respect, I try to reply in kind.

So, your question is was it right for it to be done then? You're assuming that each situation is the same and that's the fault in your reasoning. Something like this is not automatically right or wrong, regardless of when it's done. These actions are not taking place in a vacuum. At the time, in the early 80's, do you think we should have been aiding the leftist fighters of Nicaragua? I would say no.

Now, on to what Cotton did and how it's not exactly the same thing. Firstly, this is not about foreign aid. This is about negotiations, of which we are only one country. So not only is he shitting on us, but our partners in the talks. It's just a sign of disrespect on his part. The upper management of Iran doesn't need a refresher course on our government from a senator who's been in office three months. Most of their people went to college in the West, many in the US. They're well aware of our government and how treaties work. I think beyond what Cotton said, it was what he didn't say, but implied that made it even worse. The letter was worded and written as if was addressing a child. It contained veiled threats, etc. Overall, we're trying to get a deal done. Take off your political hat for just a moment and tell me honestly; when you are involved in negotiations such as these, is it your best play to do what he did and subjugate the office of the President, who is responsible for negotiating foreign affairs? How does it make us look? Like rank amateurs who are not all on the same page. Make no mistake, I am not for one side or the other. I'm for the truth. If the truth is bad for democrats, so be it. If it's bad for republicans, so be it.

I really love the part where you write that Cotton is shitting on our partners (the Iranians) in the project. Of course we should always shit on the Iranians. You know, they invaded our embassy, kidnapped out people, held them for 444 days, threatened their lives, did emotional torture on them. supplied IEDs to the terrorist to kill American servicemen, and supplied money, arms, and training to terrorists around the world. Hell Yes! We should shit on them at every opportunity. Why do you love the Iranians so much?

You ask what I would have done. The first time some jackass said "death to America" I would have gotten up and walked out, boarded a plane, and informed the White House to increase the sanctions and maybe blow up an Iranian ship that gets "too close" to an American ship. They need to learn to act civilized before they can be bargained with. At the first sign of deception (like the discovery of unreported sites) I would have destroyed another ship or two.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Your first mistake was thinking you were correct.

Which is inconsistent with his alleged "rule" of "investigation," which is:

I do not have preconceived notions. I follow the evidence wherever it leads.

[dirty dog]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

I think Iran realizes what it would lose if it did use one. It would cease to exist. I think it wants to be a player in the region.

I agree they want to be a player, but I don't believe that they would be wiped out. Who is going to do it, the us is not going to nuke Iran, why you ask, because our ally will already be dead. But for the sake of argument lets say okay we will respond with force, do you think Iran believes we will based on the last 6 years and if they don't believe it, then its not a deterrent. No, personally I think at best you a UN retaliation, at worst a strongly worded condemnation and sanctions. But hey I maybe very wrong.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

...do you think Iran believes we will based on the last 6 years and if they don't believe it, then its not a deterrent. No, ...

What "peace-niks" don't get is that on the world stage force and violence is "respected" and "feel good" isn't. And as a corollary to that REALITY giving off the perception of weakness actually increases the potential for the use of force.

So what knucklrhead liberals like Obaminable don't get is they are increasing the likelihood of a regional and/or world wide conflagration by being wimpish and conciliatory. Has anyone heard the word "vacuum" used lately regarding the Middle East? That's not a reference to a machine to clean up shit off the floor.

Some of you "anti-war" folks ought to go back and read the transcripts from the 911 Commission regarding "use of force" during the Clinton Administration as it related to "projecting" manpower around the world on short notice (a month or so). Read the "excuse" for not sending "hunters" into Afghanistan to track down and kill OBL and his band of "merry men."

Who goes to kick the ass of an 800 pound gorilla? How about an 80 pounder?

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

"peace-niks"

?????"peace-niks"?????

I haven't heard that term used since LLIdiot and his fellow "peace-niks" were dodging the draft back in the Vietnam War era!

Carry on!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

?????"peace-niks"?????

I haven't heard that term used since LLIdiot and his fellow "peace-niks" were dodging the draft back in the Vietnam War era!

You keep getting me confused with YOUR PRESIDENT:



BTW: BigTits didn't you "dodge the draft"?

Keep reading and learning, BigTits. You'll catch up sooner or later.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You keep getting me confused with YOUR PRESIDENT:



BTW: BigTits didn't you "dodge the draft"?

Keep reading and learning, BigTits. You'll catch up sooner or later.

Busted him again. You make it look easy.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

didn't you "dodge the draft"?

I do not believe that most sane and rational people (which eliminates Idiot Klan, errr Clan members) considered volunteering for a 4 year active duty commitment during the Vietnam War era, to be "dodging the draft."

Perhaps that is the term LL and his fellow Klanners, errr Clanners used in Idiotville.

Speaking of which, did you (LLIdiot) enlist!

Were you drafted?

Or did you "dodge the draft?"

Carry on!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by bigtex

I do not believe that most sane and rational people (which eliminates Idiot Klan, errr Clan members) considered volunteering for a 4 year active duty commitment during the Vietnam War era, to be "dodging the draft."

I noticed you didn't answer the question. Just a bunch of bullshit.

Were you drafted? yes or no.

It's pretty fucking simple BigTits, even for a dumbass, loud mouth like you.

As for your feeble attempt to avoid answering a question with a "retort question":

Here's my response. For YEARS (it seems) you have announced on this board that I "dodged the draft" .... If you have to ask me, then you don't know. Which means all these years you have been making up shit about me.... and LYING ABOUT IT. Like I've also said: Have a look at my OMPF. If you can't, then perhaps you don't have sufficient authorization to do so, which means:

what's in it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Once you post your full legal name, DOB, and SSN in this forum I will see if you have the "credentials' to take a peek at it.

In the meantime, enjoy your hypocrisy of whining about "draft dodgers":



I believe you campaigned for this^^^^ DRAFT DODGER.
I believe you voted for this^^^^ DRAFT DODGER in 1992.
I believe you voted for this^^^^ DRAFT DODGER in 1996.
And have sung his^^ praises through your "career" on ASPD and ECCIE!

Carry on (If you can!).

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by dirty dog

Well we have been in 5 wars and we have nukes, Russia has been in several, a nuke is only a deterrent if the person who has it is willing to use it. Which highlights the problem with Iran who has already said they would use it getting one.

What 5 wars are you referring to? I am talking about a real war where the enemy has the potential to invade our land. I don't consider the U.S-Iraq war a "war" in the true sense of the word- mainly a one-sided invasion. You and I both know that the chances of an Iraqi soldier landing on our shores or an Iraq air fighter jet or Iraqi Scud missile coming anywhere close to our land was zero. Let me ask you a question dirty dog- in any of those 5wars were you worried about the enemy showing up on American soil. Did you really think you would wake up one day and on the news hear: "the Taliban has just taken over New York City and are in full control of the city... or Iraqi jets just bombed D.C and we believe there are loss of American lives- we advise all Americans in the D.C to stay home and avoid coming out until the Iraqi jets have been shot down or have left the country....

The same goes with the Afghan war and the Kuwait-Iraq conflict none of those countries had the man power, technology or means to invade our country so those are quite different. The last major war between 2 countries were the Iran-Iraq conflict where during various times of the battle each side's troop invaded and held territory of the other country's land. Those scenarios were never possible with the so called 5 wars you have mentioned.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

...a real war where the enemy has the potential to invade our land.

..... conflict none of those countries had the man power, technology or means to invade our country so those are quite different.

For roughly 200 years our philosophy in the U.S. has been to prevent any "invasion" of our "homeland" by taking the fight to the "enemy's" soil. An anemic, downsized military cannot do that effectively, and #2 "we" have to neutralize any "threat" on their soil to avoid domestic damage.

Pearl Harbor and the attempt and then success in downing the WTC towers demonstrated that a foreign country and terrorists can strike a devastating blow to this country if we are not continuously diligent, and are unable or unwilling to project intelligence and military power to prevent such events.

The "ripple effect" of 911 has impacted this country immensely both psychologically, culturally, physically, and fiscally. Since the beginning of the ballistic, intercontinental missile technology married to a nuclear warhead Houston and San Antonio, Texas, have been "ground zero" ..... an "invading" army is useless under that scenario, and unnecessary. It seems appropriate to stop the production of weapon systems that can destroy parts of this country for 1,000's of years and effectively cause irreparable economic, physical, and personal damage for longer than this country has been in existence.

Here who is currently "in charge" with your future and personal safety:

9/11/2001 CNN

KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did your committee on international operations and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I really love the part where you write that Cotton is shitting on our partners (the Iranians) in the project. Of course we should always shit on the Iranians. You know, they invaded our embassy, kidnapped out people, held them for 444 days, threatened their lives, did emotional torture on them. supplied IEDs to the terrorist to kill American servicemen, and supplied money, arms, and training to terrorists around the world. Hell Yes! We should shit on them at every opportunity. Why do you love the Iranians so much?

You ask what I would have done. The first time some jackass said "death to America" I would have gotten up and walked out, boarded a plane, and informed the White House to increase the sanctions and maybe blow up an Iranian ship that gets "too close" to an American ship. They need to learn to act civilized before they can be bargained with. At the first sign of deception (like the discovery of unreported sites) I would have destroyed another ship or two.

Our partners in the NEGOTIATIONS you goddamn fool. Jesus Christ you're dumb as the week is long. The other six countries who are parties to the talks. An act of 'deception'? Like switching out their leaders because we need a puppet to steal oil from?