Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Obama is the Worst Potus Negotiator in our History

+3
knothead
Markle
ZVUGKTUBM
7 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

See the iran deal. Now he won't call their ballistic missile tests and declarations to develop their program a violation... despite assurances in the "deal". He wants to now cave on them having access to the us dollar and our financial systems... despite assurances in the "deal". And a huge shipment of weapons... including rocket propelled grenades and launchers... was intercepted headed to yemen. Just like every reasonable and objective person said the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world would do.

Congress is going to look into the lies used to justify this deal. The treasury secretary testified and the secretary of state testified to the exact opposite of what this administration intended. Don't forget these lies were used by the dems to filibuster a congressional rejection of this "deal". I seriously wouldn't trust these assholes to buy a car for me. When do people get tired of being lied to for some bs feel good narrative? Where's boards to define useful idiot for us again?

NO deal was much preferable to this "deal"... just like many here said.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Again focusing on Iran, when the U.S. faces a direct nuclear threat from North Korea.....

Iran has frozen its program; North Korea has declared itself a nuclear power and has already conducted several nuclear tests. They do have a missile program and have claimed they can miniaturize nuclear warheads enough to fit them on their crude rockets. A crude rocket with enogh range to reach targets in the northwestern U.S.

Iran has never threatened to attack the U.S. North Korea has, and continues to mount threats against us.

If you are going to complain about how the administration is handling Iran, you need to have double the concern over North Korea. Maybe even triple the concern..... The Iranian mullahs who rule that country may be acting like peckerheads, but Kim Jong Un is likely insane. A young, insane, and unseasoned world leader with an A-bomb in his pocket. What can go wrong with that?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

Do you recall how n.korea became nuclear armed? The deals? The agreements? The violations? The appeasements?

Are you seriously advocating that we follow that same path? Or that we just roll over now and save the time?

Iran thinks that it has the upper hand... I think they're right. It's amazing that obama can play this so weakly.

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Again focusing on Iran, when the U.S. faces a direct nuclear threat from North Korea.....

Iran has frozen its program; North Korea has declared itself a nuclear power and has already conducted several nuclear tests. They do have a missile program and have claimed they can miniaturize nuclear warheads enough to fit them on their crude rockets. A crude rocket with enogh range to reach targets in the northwestern U.S.

Iran has never threatened to attack the U.S. North Korea has, and continues to mount threats against us.

If you are going to complain about how the administration is handling Iran, you need to have double the concern over North Korea. Maybe even triple the concern..... The Iranian mullahs who rule that country may be acting like peckerheads, but Kim Jong Un is likely insane. A young, insane, and unseasoned world leader with an A-bomb in his pocket. What can go wrong with that?

Obama is the Worst Potus Negotiator in our History LOL_zpsrc5py0ql

That's exactly what they said about North Korea too! How's that work out?

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Which nation was the world's first rogue nuclear power? Why didn't the U.S. stand against this rogue nuclear power, which happens to have a very powerful nuclear arsenal?

At least the other rogues are not hiding their bombs in the closet.......

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Again focusing on Iran, when the U.S. faces a direct nuclear threat from North Korea.....

Iran has frozen its program; North Korea has declared itself a nuclear power and has already conducted several nuclear tests. They do have a missile program and have claimed they can miniaturize nuclear warheads enough to fit them on their crude rockets. A crude rocket with enogh range to reach targets in the northwestern U.S.

Iran has never threatened to attack the U.S. North Korea has, and continues to mount threats against us.

If you are going to complain about how the administration is handling Iran, you need to have double the concern over North Korea. Maybe even triple the concern..... The Iranian mullahs who rule that country may be acting like peckerheads, but Kim Jong Un is likely insane. A young, insane, and unseasoned world leader with an A-bomb in his pocket. What can go wrong with that?

North Korea cannot properly launch a kite, much less a missile far enough to touch even the Aleutian Islands. There are countermeasures in place for everything the Young Un can do. It's China's sphere of influence. I am sure they would love to take him out, but don't want the humanitarian crisis of who knows how many NK citizens bolting across their guarded border ala Muslims in Europe. The difference is, is that China would kill them period and wouldn't care what the world thought. Until China gets on board with a solution, we are gonna have to wait him out and react.

Iran is getting missile tech from NK though. With the SCUDS and Shahabs they have, Western Europe is in reach and all of our bases. Iran has done much bolder things like taking our sailors hostage, shooting down two drones and such. NK has not done any physical provocation of the United States.

Iran is a huge threat whether you like it or not and they have threatened to wipe out the only democracy in the Middle East in Israel. If there is any nation we might never back down from protecting it is that nation. My dad believes that we will eventually turn our back on them. He says the President has his back halfway turned on them now. He thinks, too, that Obama will end up Secretary General of the UN after he leaves office and that will be a bad time for Israel.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

What? wrote:...like it or not and they have threatened to wipe out the only democracy in the Middle East in Israel. If there is any nation we might never back down from protecting it is that nation. My dad believes that we will eventually turn our back on them. He says the President has his back halfway turned on them now. He thinks, too, that Obama will end up Secretary General of the UN after he leaves office and that will be a bad time for Israel.

I knew I could bait you into posting using your old habits, Mr. PaceDog/ Obamasucks/What? We always knew you would return, because you always do. Welcome back.

This forum is going to be a lot more fun with you and poster Markle around.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Which nation was the world's first rogue nuclear power? Why didn't the U.S. stand against this rogue nuclear power, which happens to have a very powerful nuclear arsenal?

At least the other rogues are not hiding their bombs in the closet.......

North Korea hid their bombs until they were developed and testing.

Same is happening with Iran, as you well know.



Last edited by Markle on 4/6/2016, 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total

knothead

knothead

Allow me to ask a rather obvious question . . . . . . yall want to nuke these countries, is that it?

Guest


Guest

knothead wrote:Allow me to ask a rather obvious question . . . . . . yall want to nuke these countries, is that it?

I haven't seen anyone propose that.

Would you be ok with a neighbor that was a mentally ill religious nut convicted felon was collecting weapons?

knothead

knothead

PkrBum wrote:
knothead wrote:Allow me to ask a rather obvious question . . . . . . yall want to nuke these countries, is that it?

I haven't seen anyone propose that.

Would you be ok with a neighbor that was a mentally ill religious nut convicted felon was collecting weapons?

Thanks to the NRA that choice is not available . . . . . guns rule apparently but that aside my point was what does America do with these rogue nations armed with nuclear weapons? Negotiate and use diplomacy or unleash our nuclear arsenal . . . . . it's clearly a catch 22 . . . . I understand the conundrum but honestly do not have the answer . . . . and yall propose . . . .?

Guest


Guest

No deal was preferable to the appeasement that obama and kerry were so desperate to give. This "deal" sucks... period.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

PkrBum wrote:No deal was preferable to the appeasement that obama and kerry were so desperate to give. This "deal" sucks... period.

Please do not tell me you are one of those pro-Zionist nuts who does not care that Israel might have a very large and powerful nuclear arsenal, held in secret, and this might be the reason Israel's enemies are clamoring for the same.

Why does Israel get a free pass on this? It has no nuclear armed neighbors, and is protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Israel has never been defeated in a conventional war, yet it craved nukes so it would have a bigger dick to swing around in the Middle East. Since they have nukes, they don't need to extract $3 billion in military aid from the U.S. every year, and they should stand on their own.

Sorry if I got carried away.... With Teo gone, I am the only anti-Zionist left standing for this forum, and must speak for two people.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Guest


Guest

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
PkrBum wrote:No deal was preferable to the appeasement that obama and kerry were so desperate to give. This "deal" sucks... period.

Please do not tell me you are one of those pro-Zionist nuts who does not care that Israel might have a very large and powerful nuclear arsenal, held in secret, and this might be the reason Israel's enemies are clamoring for the same.

Why does Israel get a free pass on this? It has no nuclear armed neighbors, and is protected by the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Israel has never been defeated in a conventional war, yet it craved nukes so it would have a bigger dick to swing around in the Middle East. Since they have nukes, they don't need to extract $3 billion in military aid from the U.S. every year, and they should stand on their own.

Sorry if I got carried away.... With Teo gone, I am the only anti-Zionist left standing for this forum, and must speak for two people.

They get a pass because they haven't publicly avowed to wipe their enemies off the face of the Earth- unlike NK has done with the US and lately China and as Iran has promised Israel and ourselves.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

What if your neighbor had 10,000 firearms in his house?  And what if he was insisting that you are not allowed to have even one firearm in your house?
Would you let your neighbor dictate to you that you can't have one?

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Bob wrote:What if your neighbor had 10,000 firearms in his house?  And what if he was insisting that you are not allowed to have even one firearm in your house?
Would you let your neighbor dictate to you that you can't have one?

Don't talk sense to poster PeeDog/Obamasucks/What? Bob. He was always wrapped up in religious dogma concerning Zionist-Israel. He thinks that if the U.S. doesn't kowtow to every demand made by that nut Benjamin Netanyahu, we are going against God's wishes.

I will tell you, old Peedog is gonna vote for Trump if Trump gets the GOP nomination in July. Trump has stated he will be neutral concerning his Middle East policies. This means his advisors are telling him not to kiss Israel's ass if he gets elected. At least, Trump is surrounding himself with wise men concerning U.S.-Israel relations. I actually would support such policies were he to be elected.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

knothead wrote:Allow me to ask a rather obvious question . . . . . . yall want to nuke these countries, is that it?

You just enjoy acting foolish don't you?

Please show us where anyone has made that as a serious suggestion.

If you cannot, then just say you were being facetious.

Markle

Markle

knothead wrote:
PkrBum wrote:
knothead wrote:Allow me to ask a rather obvious question . . . . . . yall want to nuke these countries, is that it?

I haven't seen anyone propose that.

Would you be ok with a neighbor that was a mentally ill religious nut convicted felon was collecting weapons?

Thanks to the NRA that choice is not available . . . . . guns rule apparently but that aside my point was what does America do with these rogue nations armed with nuclear weapons? Negotiate and use diplomacy or unleash our nuclear arsenal . . . . . it's clearly a catch 22 . . . . I understand the conundrum but honestly do not have the answer . . . . and yall propose . . . .?

Sever, draconian sanctions on North Korea and Iran backed by China, Russia and the US.

Markle

Markle

Bob wrote:What if your neighbor had 10,000 firearms in his house?  And what if he was insisting that you are not allowed to have even one firearm in your house?
Would you let your neighbor dictate to you that you can't have one?

What if...if a frog had wings he wouldn't bust his behind every time he hit the ground.

Are you actually futilely trying to draw a parallel between you and your next door neighbor with North Korea and the rest of the world?

Desperation abounds at Bob household!

gatorfan



He is a walking foreign policy disaster, Putin and Iran have run circles around him making the U.S. look weak and ineffective. Even Fidel Castro thinks he is ineffective. A few other failures:

"1. The Rise of ISIS. President Obama failed to anticipate the rise of ISIS, which he ridiculed as a “jayvee team” and he has since failed to do anything effective to impede it. ISIS had established territory in large parts of Syria and Iraq; it now “controls a volume of resources and territory unmatched in the history of extremist organizations.” Under Mr. Obama’s watch, a jihadist caliphate has been established in the heart of the Middle East — and the president has no strategy to deal with it.

2. Losing the War in Iraq. President Obama’s predecessor handed to him a war that had been won. Don’t take my word for it; take the word of Mr. Obama and his vice president. On December 14, 2011, in welcoming troops home at Ft. Bragg as he was ending the American presence in Iraq, the president declared “we’re leaving behind a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq.” It was, the commander-in-chief said, a “moment of success.” A year earlier Vice President Joe Biden put itthis way: “I am very optimistic about Iraq. I think it’s going to be one of the great achievements of this administration.” All our hard-earned achievements were undone by the president’s determined commitment to withdraw all American troops from Iraq during his presidency. He did what he was determined to do and, as a result, Iraq is collapsing and Iran is rushing in, increasing its influence to an unprecedented degree.

3. Failing to Aid Iran’s Green Revolution. In the summer of 2009, a revolutio n in Iran threatened to topple the mullahs. Leaders of the so-called “Green Revolution” pleaded for support. They got none. President Obama, in saying he “want[ed] to avoid the United States being the issue inside Iran”, did nothing to aid the pro-democracy elements that were seeking to overthrow the Islamic theocracy. Whether our assistance would have altered the course of events is impossible to know — but the president, in essentially casting his lot with the Iranian regime during its most vulnerable period since the 1979 revolution, ensured the democratic uprising would fail. And with it, our best chance of the Middle East cleansing itself of the most malignant and dangerous regime on earth.

4. Triggering a Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has long advocated a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. But President Obama’s determined effort to strike a deal with Iran, in which all the important concessions are made by us and none by the Iranians, has petrified our traditional Sunni allies in the region. Fearful of Iran, nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others are now considering and/or preparing to acquire nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief and ex-ambassador to Washington, Prince Turki al Faisal, declared in March that whatever Iran gets in its nuclear deal with the United States, “we will want the same.” Ibrahim al-Marie, a retired Saudi colonel and a security analyst in Riyadh, put it this way: “Our leaders will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon while we don’t. If Iran declares a nuclear weapon, we can’t afford to wait 30 years more for our own—we should be able to declare ours within a week.” The president’s effort to strike a deal with Iran, then, is triggering a nuclear arms race in the world’s most volatile region, with the risks of nuclear war increased by the threat of terrorist groups acquiring radioactive material.

5. Erasing the “Red Line” in Syria. In 2012, President Obama said Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad — who the previous year was referred to as a “reformer” by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — should step down and that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime against rebel forces would constitute crossing a “red line.” Mr. Assad crossed the red line, and President Obama did nothing. The brutal Syrian leader is still in power, Syria is being torn apart by a civil war in which around a quarter of a million people have died, around four million have fled as refugees, and around eight million have been internally displaced. Syria’s neighbors are being destabilized. And an unmistakable message of weakness was sent by Mr. Obama and received by every adversary and ally of the United States: Mr. Obama’s words and threats are worthless.

6. The Failure to Arm Syrian Rebels. As Syria began to unravel, in 2012 then-CIA director David Petraeus and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton developed a plan to vet Syrian rebels and train a cadre of fighters who would be supplied with weapons. The plan was supported at the time by Leon Panetta, who was defense secretary, and Martin Dempsey, who was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But it was ultimately vetoed by President Obama, according to Mr. Panetta. The president was worried about becoming more deeply involved in Syria. That hasn’t worked out very well, though. America is not only involved in Syria; we have launched military airstrikes against it and Mr. Obama has proposed a major program to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels, though it’s likely too late to influence events on the ground. It’s impossible to know if the Petraeus plan would have succeeded when it was proposed three years ago. But what we do know is that today, with America taking a hands-off approach, (a) Syria has become a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe and (b) we have been drawn into the conflict.

7. Libya Collapses and Becomes a Terrorist Safe Haven. On March 19, 2011, President Obama unilaterally authorized the U.S. military to begin “a limited military action in Libya” to protect Libyan civilians. He said by intervening in Libya’s civil war, he was acting “in the interests of the United States and the world.” Six months later, during a September 21, 2011 speech to the United Nations, President Obama declared, “Forty-two years of tyranny was ended in six months. From Tripoli to Misurata to Benghazi — today, Libya is free… Yesterday, the leaders of a new Libya took their rightful place beside us, and this week, the United States is reopening our embassy in Tripoli. This is how the international community is supposed to work — nations standing together for the sake of peace and security, and individuals claiming their rights.” Since then — and in good part because of the lack of American follow through and engagement — we have closed our embassy. Syria has been declared a terrorist safe haven by the State Department. No central authority exists. The Libyan state has collapsed and is being torn asunder by civil war. According to the New York Times, “the violence threatens to turn Libya into a pocket of chaos destabilizing North Africa for years to come.” An intervention Mr. Obama once hailed as a model now lies in ruins.

8. Russian Aggression in Crimea and Ukraine. In 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed the “Russian reset.” It was said to be a “win-win” situation for both sides. It hasn’t worked out quite that way. The United States scrapped a missile-defense system the Poles and the Czech Republic had agreed to house despite Russian threats, as a way to pacify Russia’s Vladimir Putin. In return, Russia has reasserted its presence in the Middle East in ways unseen since the 1970s, propped up the Assad regime in Syria, supported Iran’s nuclear ambitions and its repression at home, invaded Crimea, militarily intervened in Ukraine, and given safe haven to Edward Snowden. During Mr. Obama’s watch, Putin has “position[ed] contemporary Russia as the heir to the Russian Empire as it was constituted under the czars,” according to the Russian American journalist and author Masha Gessen. That is what the “Russian reset” looks like in real life.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/counting-up-obamas-cataclysmic-foreign-policy-failures/

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

gatorfan wrote:https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/counting-up-obamas-cataclysmic-foreign-policy-failures/

You do a really good job picking Jewish/pro-Zionist, neocon-backed, hard right-wing sources to back your assertions. Any bias in the article you posted verbatim?

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

gatorfan



ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
gatorfan wrote:https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/counting-up-obamas-cataclysmic-foreign-policy-failures/

You do a really good job picking Jewish/pro-Zionist, neocon-backed, hard right-wing sources to back your assertions. Any bias in the article you posted verbatim?

LOL, your anti-Israel bias is well-documented and rises to a level where you can ignore the many facts presented in the mostly objective article.

I suppose if I presented the same information as from one of your leftist hyper-biased sources you would believe it?

Amazing.

Guest


Guest

by Bob Today at 8:18 am
What if your neighbor had 10,000 firearms in his house? And what if he was insisting that you are not allowed to have even one firearm in your house?
Would you let your neighbor dictate to you that you can't have one?

Bob, that's a ba analogy especially when the neighbor who allegedly has no guns actually does and they outnumber you about 100,000,000 to 7 million

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

What? wrote:by Bob Today at 8:18 am
Bob, that's a ba analogy especially when the neighbor who allegedly has no guns actually does and they outnumber you about 100,000,000 to 7 million

O come on now.... Israel has never been defeated in any of the wars it has fought against any foe. The agnostic (if not atheist) Zionists, who pander to gullible Christians about how blessed they are, are into power- raw power. They want to strut about and stomp all over anyone they can hold power over; especially the Arabs that live around them. There have been tons of blowback in return, in the form of terrorism, but the Israelis are hardly innocent victims.

Nixon made a grave mistake when he backed down after confronting the then Israeli PM over Israel's growing secret atomic bomb arsenal. Instead of telling Golda Meir to get rid of it, he said it was it was okay, just keep it a secret.  Nixon should have closed the book on them after their refusal to disarm, and denied them any future aid from the U.S.

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

Markle

Markle

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
What? wrote:by Bob Today at 8:18 am
Bob, that's a ba analogy especially when the neighbor who allegedly has no guns actually does and they outnumber you about 100,000,000 to 7 million

O come on now.... Israel has never been defeated in any of the wars it has fought against any foe. The agnostic (if not atheist) Zionists, who pander to gullible Christians about how blessed they are, are into power- raw power. They want to strut about and stomp all over anyone they can hold power over; especially the Arabs that live around them. There have been tons of blowback in return, in the form of terrorism, but the Israelis are hardly innocent victims.

Nixon made a grave mistake when he backed down after confronting the then Israeli PM over Israel's growing secret atomic bomb arsenal. Instead of telling Golda Meir to get rid of it, he said it was it was okay, just keep it a secret.  Nixon should have closed the book on them after their refusal to disarm, and denied them any future aid from the U.S.

President Nixon knew Golda Meir would not back down and she'd have made Nixon look like Lame Duck President Obama.

As you know, Israel has been our very best Democratic friend in the Middle East. Israel has never threatened to wipe any other country off the face of the earth. They have, and rightfully so, vigorously defended themselves. Most likely, President Nixon understood the situation they are in and rightfully so, agreed to look the other way.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum