They have no intention of doing so. Obama only hopes to delay it for another future president to deal with. Just like everything else.

President Kick-The-Can has spoke and you serfs better wise up and quit making noise.

ButterflyDragon on January 8, 2013 at 4:45 PM

Well, they could begin by ending our warfare against Iran and quit having their surrogates go on television and openly discuss bombing Iran.

how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?

They have no intention of doing so. Obama only hopes to delay it for another future president to deal with. Just like everything else.

President Kick-The-Can has spoke and you serfs better wise up and quit making noise.

then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?

They don’t.

Containment is the word, is the word, is the word…

Hmmm, I suspect they don’t even consider containment at all. We’ve got nukes, so its only fair that Iran, since it has the capability and desire to produce them, should have them. Barry and Co. expect the Iranians to be, uh, judicious and restrained in the management of nukes once Iran has them. Strictly for defense, of course.

Here’s the question Hagel’s record poses for Obama after nominating this fringe voice on security: If sanctions are unacceptable and a military response is “not a viable, feasible, responsible option,” then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?

Look at the establishment casting non-approved views as “fringe”.

I find it funny that you demand answers to meaningless questions, nit pick answers, narrow and expand the meaningless questions’ meanings all to claim you haven”t recieved an answer to a side bar bullsh!t question.

You don’t do a good job at answering questions yourself, Sport.

You seem bent on interventionalism. Can you tell me why it matters at all whether anyone here is against interventionalism? And why is it narrowed down to Iran only? Was that on Soledad’s show this morning?

I personally do not believe in intervening in another country’s affairs unless provoked. I think the whole idea of national soveriegnty and living in one’s country as one chooses is vital to all mankind. There are times when jumping into another’s fight is foolish, other times it is the least of evils.

I believe my personal world paradign to be consistant with reality and that my beliefs are consistant with that paradigm. I also believe my thoughts inside that paradigm are internally consistent.

I enjoy debate because I seek to validate or refute my thoughts and beliefs on those subjects and change my paradigm accordingly.

You are not an unintelligent person, but I confess I get little from this type of rhetorical banter. Playing word games does nothing for the discussion or for my understanding of the world. It leads sometimes to insights into the thought processes of those who view the world in a different light than I, but it usually just reinforces my existing opinions of them and the veracity of thier beliefs.

Clearly, you and I are here for different purposes.

Gotta take off now, but will check for any replies later.

Ciao.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Look, you made a claim; I am simply asking you to point to evidence. So far, you haven’t done so. You have a funny idea of funny. This isn’t word games; this is you making a claim and my asking you to back it up.

You said, “you received plenty of responses proving there are conservatives who don’t always support interventionalism.”

I didn’t ask you to point to plenty of responses; I asked you to point to one. You made the claim, shouldn’t be too hard to do since there are “plenty of responses”.

Point to one.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I find it funny that you demand answers to meaningless questions, nit pick answers, narrow and expand the meaningless questions’ meanings all to claim you haven”t recieved an answer to a side bar bullsh!t question.

You don’t do a good job at answering questions yourself, Sport.

You seem bent on interventionalism. Can you tell me why it matters at all whether anyone here is against interventionalism? And why is it narrowed down to Iran only? Was that on Soledad’s show this morning?

I personally do not believe in intervening in another country’s affairs unless provoked. I think the whole idea of national soveriegnty and living in one’s country as one chooses is vital to all mankind. There are times when jumping into another’s fight is foolish, other times it is the least of evils.

I believe my personal world paradign to be consistant with reality and that my beliefs are consistant with that paradigm. I also believe my thoughts inside that paradigm are internally consistent.

I enjoy debate because I seek to validate or refute my thoughts and beliefs on those subjects and change my paradigm accordingly.

You are not an unintelligent person, but I confess I get little from this type of rhetorical banter. Playing word games does nothing for the discussion or for my understanding of the world. It leads sometimes to insights into the thought processes of those who view the world in a different light than I, but it usually just reinforces my existing opinions of them and the veracity of thier beliefs.

Clearly, you and I are here for different purposes.

Gotta take off now, but will check for any replies later.

Ciao.

then how exactly do Obama and Hagel expect to keep Iran from building nuclear weapons?

They don’t.

Grease Containment is the word, is the word, is the word…

The real worry in Israel is that Israel is being turned into the football in the political football game in the US. Israelis don’t want to be the reason the 2 political parties fight with each other.

As for myself, I think Obama knew everything about Hagel and nominated him anyway. Given that Iran is the biggest project for the incoming SecDef, Obama tapped Hagel to signal the Iranians and Israelis about his intentions with respect to Iran. Everything else on the SecDef’s to do list is almost irrelevant and is just a matter of administration and logistics.

It worries me greatly that Obama picked Hagel of all people. Not because he will be anti-Israel, but he will be anti-stopping-Iran-at-all-costs.

Reality to the contrary, of course. But interesting that you mention Iran’s oil as being “America’s oil interest”.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Whoa! You really got me there!

No. You didn’t.

America is interested in oil in Iran and plenty of other places. I have interests in many companies. What is so interesting about a person company or country having interest? Oh, wait… Is the word “interest” one of those progressive code words? What does it mean? Can you tell me or is a trait secret?

Where has my position deviated from reality, or is that a “if you don’t know, l’m not gonna tell you *insert smirk here* ” sort of thing?

1. I point to me as one who is against Obama’s interventionalist foreign policies. I think it was illegal and short-sighted to use American assets to topple the evil, yet stable government to insert a Muslim Brotherhood dictator in Libya.

2. I do hereby criticize the current U.S. policy in Iran as being completely devoid of any value what-so-ever. Hoping that savages will act like honorable men just because you treat them that way is just asking to end up in a soup.

There. I said it. Happy now?

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 1:05 PM

That would be the first time someone in this thread has said they are against interventionism. Well, that wasn’t exacly a statement of being against interventionism, just that the “current foreign policy” (which has been the same foreign policy for the past 30+ years) is devoid of value, and that you are against it when Obama does it.

So we’re back to square one: you said there were “plenty of responses proving there are conservatives who don’t always support interventionalism.”

Point to one.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Abbot and Costello, “whose on first?”

Who are your role models?

You are oblivious to your own Rhetorical Games, aren’t you?

Classic.

Dude, other than the fact that you keep dancing and moving the goalposts like a mind-numbed lib… are you f*cking serious? Conservatives have been strongly objecting to the lack of seriousness with which this administration has been taking Iran for, um, a few years now, m’kay? How about Syria – linked to Iran – where HC was schmoozing Assad, and being vocally rebuffed by conservatives – you know, just before he started slaughtering his civilians.

Man, wtf is wrong with you? You staked claims and got your ass handed to you repeatedly, but you keep narrowing the scope and doubling down – and STILL getting your ass handed to you, because you’re premise is beyond f*cked in the head. Wake the f*ck up, please.

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Moving the goalposts? Narrowing the scope?

Here is your post:

Um, no… ? I see a great number of conservatives expressing criticism of foreign policy, and it has nothing to do with ‘against the military and against America’, it’s criticism of the foreign policy in question.

Did you mispeak, or do you really not see criticism of foreign policy occuring by conservatives, and not directed as a negative against either military or America – and in this very thread?

Midas on January 8, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I’ll repeat: Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism. Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Just one.

And again, since you seem to have missed it the first time:

I didn’t say anything about Obama because it’s not about Obama. This interventionist, warring foreign policy has been going on for decades, almost a century, but really full steam for the past 50 to 60 years. Obama is just the latest steward of it.

So go ahead: Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism. Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:36 PM

1. I point to me as one who is against Obama’s interventionalist foreign policies. I think it was illegal and short-sighted to use American assets to topple the evil, yet stable government to insert a Muslim Brotherhood dictator in Libya.

2. I do hereby criticize the current U.S. policy in Iran as being completely devoid of any value what-so-ever. Hoping that savages will act like honorable men just because you treat them that way is just asking to end up in a soup.

There. I said it. Happy now?

The only thing I care about in the Middle East is respect for Israel’s right to exist. Iran is onboard with that, right?

P.S.

About those hostages… Isn’t it really America’s fault for treating a cur like a gentleman? And what came next after the shah fell? Nothing but the tolerence, peace, love and understanding of a loving open-minded theocracy of the religion of peace.

Reality to the contrary, of course.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Reality is chewing on your a$$, but you apparently don’t know it.

Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism? Point to a single “conservative” here who is criticizing America’s actions and policy against Iran.

Just one.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Dude, other than the fact that you keep dancing and moving the goalposts like a mind-numbed lib… are you f*cking serious? Conservatives have been strongly objecting to the lack of seriousness with which this administration has been taking Iran for, um, a few years now, m’kay? How about Syria – linked to Iran – where HC was schmoozing Assad, and being vocally rebuffed by conservatives – you know, just before he started slaughtering his civilians.

Man, wtf is wrong with you? You staked claims and got your ass handed to you repeatedly, but you keep narrowing the scope and doubling down – and STILL getting your ass handed to you, because you’re premise is beyond f*cked in the head. Wake the f*ck up, please.

You aren’t criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism by calling for more interventionsim.

Dante on January 8, 2013 at 12:47 PM

No I’m not. I am criticizing the current policy of interventionism as half-a$$ed.

I am. I also criticize America’s actions in Afghanistan. We aren’t doing enough. I served in Vietnam and I criticized our actions there. We didn’t do enough.

Again, who are your role models?

Vince on January 8, 2013 at 12:46 PM

You aren’t criticizing the foreign policy of interventionism by calling for more interventionsim.

That is so easy:

1. Whatever strengthens the Muslim Brotherhood is GOOD.

2. Whatever hurts America’s oil intererest there and in surrounding areas: GOOD

3. Whatever looks like it might lead to the destruction of Israel: DOUBLE PLUS GOOD.

See? Really not all that difficult.

ROCnPhilly on January 8, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Reality to the contrary, of course. But interesting that you mention Iran’s oil as being “America’s oil interest”.