This was today. They have never given up “death to America”, and yet the Obama regime is prostrate before them begging for a deal, kissing all kinds of ass of these American hating terrorists.

Quote:Iran’s Supreme leader Ali Khamenei called for “Death to America” on Saturday, a day after President Barack Obama appealed to Iran to seize a “historic opportunity” for a nuclear deal and a better future, and as US Secretary of State John Kerry claimed substantial progress toward an accord.

Khamenei told a crowd in Tehran that Iran would not capitulate to Western demands. When the crowd started shouting, “Death to America,” the ayatollah responded: “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.

“They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy,” he said, referring to economic sanctions aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear program. “What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system,” he said. “The politics of America is to create insecurity,” he added, referring both to US pressure on Iran and elsewhere in the region.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/khamenei-ca...nuke-deal/

lol, yeah, let's negotiate with that guy.

Our foreign policy in the region is now tied to our becoming friends with someone who does not want to be friends with us.

I think we are in the process of buying a very large ticket on the wrong horse.

(03-22-2015 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Our foreign policy in the region is now tied to our becoming friends with someone who does not want to be friends with us.

I think we are in the process of buying a very large ticket on the wrong horse.

Why is that so clear to everyone but NOT the Obama admin? I mean, Obama is so hell bent on these "negotiations" while Iran is bombing fake American warships and chanting "Death to America".

(03-22-2015 06:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Our foreign policy in the region is now tied to our becoming friends with someone who does not want to be friends with us.
I think we are in the process of buying a very large ticket on the wrong horse.

Why is that so clear to everyone but NOT the Obama admin? I mean, Obama is so hell bent on these "negotiations" while Iran is bombing fake American warships and chanting "Death to America".

It's the standard left-wing failure in foreign policy. If we just be nice to people, they will like us.

(03-22-2015 06:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 06:47 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 06:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Our foreign policy in the region is now tied to our becoming friends with someone who does not want to be friends with us.
I think we are in the process of buying a very large ticket on the wrong horse.

Why is that so clear to everyone but NOT the Obama admin? I mean, Obama is so hell bent on these "negotiations" while Iran is bombing fake American warships and chanting "Death to America".

It's the standard left-wing failure in foreign policy. If we just be nice to people, they will like us.

You'd think this admin would have learned a lesson from the failed world apology tour. Lot of benefit we received from that farce.

Everything the Obama Administration does runs counter to common sense. In economics, they believe we need a larger role for government. In foreign affairs, they believe in treating enemies (that want to kill us) better than our allies.

The next administration will spend all of its time just repairing the damage.

Move on, he doesn't mean what he said. Let's deal with the real issue, Netanyahu.

Why Netanyahu is the problem.

Step one, we have to find a viable homeland for the Palestinians. And the pre-1967 boundaries do not accomplish that. What the pre-1967 boundaries do is create two non-viable states. The resulting Israel is not viable militarily and the resulting Palestinian state is not viable economically. Push Israel back to the pre-1967 boundary and they will be nuking their neighbors sooner rather than later, because they will have no alternative.

The only solution I can see is to do what Jimmy Carter should have done at Camp David. Carve a Palestinian state out of their true ancestral home--Sinai. Pay Egypt so much that they can't say no--might be surprisingly cheap given the current state of the shambles that pass for their economy. Then spend whatever it takes to make the region habitable--so they will want to live there instead of doing everything to get out, like their ancestors for the past 3000 years or so. That's an expensive solution, but it's better than anything else.

Then we achieve energy independence at home.

Then we get the hell out.

Then we stay the hell out.

Daunting? You bet. Will anything else work? No

(03-22-2015 09:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Step one, we have to find a viable homeland for the Palestinians. And the pre-1967 boundaries do not accomplish that. What the pre-1967 boundaries do is create two non-viable states. The resulting Israel is not viable militarily and the resulting Palestinian state is not viable economically. Push Israel back to the pre-1967 boundary and they will be nuking their neighbors sooner rather than later, because they will have no alternative.

The only solution I can see is to do what Jimmy Carter should have done at Camp David. Carve a Palestinian state out of their true ancestral home--Sinai. Pay Egypt so much that they can't say no--might be surprisingly cheap given the current state of the shambles that pass for their economy. Then spend whatever it takes to make the region habitable--so they will want to live there instead of doing everything to get out, like their ancestors for the past 3000 years or so. That's an expensive solution, but it's better than anything else.

Then we achieve energy independence at home.

Then we get the hell out.

Then we stay the hell out.

Daunting? You bet. Will anything else work? No

The Jews turned a barren wasteland into a thriving, modern country. Let the Palestinians do the same in Sinai. And then blow the Palestinians off the map if they ever attack Israel again.

The problem is the Palestinian goal is not a two state solution, either in the West Bank or Sinai. The Palestinian goal is the destruction of Israel.

How does not doing a nuclear deal with Iran stop Iran from making a bomb? It is a serious question with absolutely no funny business.

(03-22-2015 12:54 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  How does not doing a nuclear deal with Iran stop Iran from making a bomb? It is a serious question with absolutely no funny business.

A nuclear deal will pave the way for a bomb.

Without a deal, they'll still try to make a bomb, but we'll destroy that capability before it happens (if anyone other than Obama is in office).

(03-22-2015 01:21 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 12:54 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  How does not doing a nuclear deal with Iran stop Iran from making a bomb? It is a serious question with absolutely no funny business.

A nuclear deal will pave the way for a bomb.

Without a deal, they'll still try to make a bomb, but we'll destroy that capability before it happens (if anyone other than Obama is in office).

So...The solution is an eventual invasion of another country?

If we want to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, yes. Or we could just let them proceed and hope for the best.

That decision will be made above my pay grade.

(03-22-2015 09:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Step one, we have to find a viable homeland for the Palestinians. And the pre-1967 boundaries do not accomplish that. What the pre-1967 boundaries do is create two non-viable states. The resulting Israel is not viable militarily and the resulting Palestinian state is not viable economically. Push Israel back to the pre-1967 boundary and they will be nuking their neighbors sooner rather than later, because they will have no alternative.

The only solution I can see is to do what Jimmy Carter should have done at Camp David. Carve a Palestinian state out of their true ancestral home--Sinai. Pay Egypt so much that they can't say no--might be surprisingly cheap given the current state of the shambles that pass for their economy. Then spend whatever it takes to make the region habitable--so they will want to live there instead of doing everything to get out, like their ancestors for the past 3000 years or so. That's an expensive solution, but it's better than anything else.

Then we achieve energy independence at home.

Then we get the hell out.

Then we stay the hell out.

Daunting? You bet. Will anything else work? No

...straight to the crux....I like it....

it's either that or nuke 'em....

(03-22-2015 01:45 PM)AirRaid Wrote:  So...The solution is an eventual invasion of another country?

define "invasion"

We don't need to overthrow their government to cripple their centrifuges.

So if you are defining "invasion" as a repeat of Iraq, no thats not necessary to strike their centrifuges.

(03-22-2015 10:28 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The problem is the Palestinian goal is not a two state solution, either in the West Bank or Sinai. The Palestinian goal is the destruction of Israel.

The problem with the two-state solution is that a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 borders sucks for the Palestinians. It happens to suck for the Israelis too. There is no possible way to divide present-day Israel into two states, where either state works for either Palestinians or Israelis.

The only solution that works within the footprint of Israel is for one of the two to leave and for the other to take over the entire area. Netanyahu understands that. The Palestinian leaders understand it, too. Americans don't.

(03-22-2015 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 10:28 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The problem is the Palestinian goal is not a two state solution, either in the West Bank or Sinai. The Palestinian goal is the destruction of Israel.

The problem with the two-state solution is that a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 borders sucks for the Palestinians. It happens to suck for the Israelis too. There is no possible way to divide present-day Israel into two states, where either state works for either Palestinians or Israelis.

The only solution that works within the footprint of Israel is for one of the two to leave and for the other to take over the entire area. Netanyahu understands that. The Palestinian leaders understand it, too. Americans don't.

I'm no expert, but it's my understanding the Sinai is the "Siberia of the Middle East". It's desert, and no one really wants it. Egypt and Israel only consider it to be a buffer against each other. It's a pretty big piece of real estate.

I agree ... give it to the Palestinians and then tell them to shut up. But I wonder if Egypt wants the Palestinians as neighbors? And I wonder if that will stop the Palestinian attacks on Israel? The answer to both questions is probably not.

(03-22-2015 08:52 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 03:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-22-2015 10:28 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The problem is the Palestinian goal is not a two state solution, either in the West Bank or Sinai. The Palestinian goal is the destruction of Israel.

The problem with the two-state solution is that a two-state solution based on the pre-1967 borders sucks for the Palestinians. It happens to suck for the Israelis too. There is no possible way to divide present-day Israel into two states, where either state works for either Palestinians or Israelis.
The only solution that works within the footprint of Israel is for one of the two to leave and for the other to take over the entire area. Netanyahu understands that. The Palestinian leaders understand it, too. Americans don't.

I'm no expert, but it's my understanding the Sinai is the "Siberia of the Middle East". It's desert, and no one really wants it. Egypt and Israel only consider it to be a buffer against each other. It's a pretty big piece of real estate.
I agree ... give it to the Palestinians and then tell them to shut up. But I wonder if Egypt wants the Palestinians as neighbors? And I wonder if that will stop the Palestinian attacks on Israel? The answer to both questions is probably not.

Siberia is an optimistic description. That's why the Philistines fought the Israelites in David's time, they wanted to get more land so they could get the hell out of there. That's why every Philistine/Palestinian who could get out did, from the fall of the Roman Empire until the Brits opened the gates in the 1920s. And even then, they refused to go back to Gaza, that's how they ended up on the West Bank. I read somewhere, don't have link, that the average IQ in Gaza is somewhere between 80 and 90. That's what happens when the brightest and best have been leaving in a steady stream for nearly two millennia.

But with infrastructure investment it could be made pretty livable.

Egypt has Palestinian neighbors now--Gaza. This would mean a longer border, but if there was a working Palestinian state on the other side, it might well be more manageable than what they have now.

There's actually a decent chance it would stop the Palestinian attacks. Right now, they have no future. I don't blame them for what they are doing. In the same situation, I would probably do the same thing. Same for Israel too. Before we condemn so much, we should walk a mile in their moccasins.

(03-22-2015 09:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Step one, we have to find a viable homeland for the Palestinians. And the pre-1967 boundaries do not accomplish that. What the pre-1967 boundaries do is create two non-viable states. The resulting Israel is not viable militarily and the resulting Palestinian state is not viable economically. Push Israel back to the pre-1967 boundary and they will be nuking their neighbors sooner rather than later, because they will have no alternative.

The only solution I can see is to do what Jimmy Carter should have done at Camp David. Carve a Palestinian state out of their true ancestral home--Sinai. Pay Egypt so much that they can't say no--might be surprisingly cheap given the current state of the shambles that pass for their economy. Then spend whatever it takes to make the region habitable--so they will want to live there instead of doing everything to get out, like their ancestors for the past 3000 years or so. That's an expensive solution, but it's better than anything else.

Then we achieve energy independence at home.

Then we get the hell out.

Then we stay the hell out.

Daunting? You bet. Will anything else work? No

I agree with this plan as well.