Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/world/middleeast/iran-ayatollah-khamenei-israel-will-not-exist.html?referrer=

There's no link

edit: fixed now

So now the LEADER of Iran has said Israel will more or less be wiped off the map in 25 years(don't know how else to interpret 'Israel won't exist') and they have said there will be no new negotiations with the USA.

Why are we bothering to still make a deal with these people? But hey lets give them billions of dollars, I'm sure they will not put a single dime of that towards their "destroy Israel" goals.

Couple things:

- "Supreme Leader" is a title. Iran has a President. He's very influential though and does dictate policies. But in the end he could say "nay, they're Satan" while the President makes the deal and it's all good to save face.

- That could refer to Israel dissolving. He's said in the past he wants the Israel government gone and an Islamic one set in place. Not "we will nuke them to death!"

edit: But yeah, his mouthing off isn't good in terms of the deal.

His being very influential is the problem. If Iran was serious about this deal they'd get rid of this guy. Why is he allowed to still spout BS?

They either need to get rid of him or show us somehow that they are vastly distancing themselves from this prick.

This is why the majority oppose the Iran deal. It's hard to do business with a country who has a substantial population of nut jobs, led by the ayatollah. The question becomes if (or I think when) the aforementioned group either stages a coup or becomes the de facto power in the region legally, what happens then?

Actually, it does seem like the Ayatollah does have final say in all executive decisions.

So not sure how this deal's going through if he's so against it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, it does seem like the Ayatollah does have final say in all executive decisions.

So not sure how this deal's going through if he's so against it.

How is the Ayatollah against it? He is getting a 140 Billion SCOTT FREE! He can do anything he wants with it and nobody can say SHIT about it!

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, it does seem like the Ayatollah does have final say in all executive decisions.


If this is true then our president is insane if he continues to want to go through with this.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
How is the Ayatollah against it? He is getting a 140 Billion SCOTT FREE! He can do anything he wants with it and nobody can say SHIT about it!

If this was true you think he'd keep his mouth shut until the deal went through.

Originally posted by Surtur




If this was true you think he'd keep his mouth shut until the deal went through.


Why should he? Who can stop it?

Rob, this has been the main reason for opposition fro majority of people, yet you supporters shrugged this off repeatedly.

The opposition was that Iran was going to build nukes and go durrka durrka Jihad on Israel because they want to die in some fiery glory.

Now while this is odd, it does seem like the Ayatollah is saying "no more negotiations" in regards to the deal, after it's been done. Which on the surface seems like dick-waving to save face, since the Ayatollah (present and past) is all about preaching how America is "evil" and here he went and sanctioned a deal with said "evil".

Rob, would you give a known arsonist that hates his neighbor a pack of matches, and a full barrel of gasoline?

Obviously not.

But that's a silly analogy. It assumes that Iran's an "arsonist".

Are you maybe confusing Iran was the varies Arab states that have actually waged war on Israel?

More like they finance several terrorist groups like Hamas to do it so they can keep the appearance of keeping their hands clean.

Originally posted by Stoic
Rob, would you give a known arsonist that hates his neighbor a pack of matches, and a full barrel of gasoline? If he were America he would. Afterall, we give plenty of "gasoline" to Saudi Arabia, which is one of the biggest "arsonists" in the Middle East, and who hates Israel and the United States quite openly.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
More like they finance several terrorist groups like Hamas to do it so they can keep the appearance of keeping their hands clean.

The question would be, would you give the worlds leading state sponser of terrorist $100 billion dollars.

Look at all of what Bin Laden did from some caves in Afghanistan and a compound with no communications in Pakistan.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
The question would be, would you give the worlds leading state sponser of terrorist $100 billion dollars.

Look at all of what Bin Laden did from some caves in Afghanistan and a compound with no communications in Pakistan.

I personally wouldn't no. But then I am not a self-serving politician.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
If he were America he would. Afterall, we give plenty of "gasoline" to Saudi Arabia, which is one of the biggest "arsonists" in the Middle East, and who hates Israel and the United States quite openly.

Actually, the ruling elite does not, hence the "business" we do with them.

So the only defense here was "The Supreme Leader does not have have final executive say in Iran."

then

"Oh wait, he does."

No, that wasn't it in the Iran deal thread. You've just forgotten again.

Well, this brings up an interesting discussion that was absent the first time around because it was poo poo'd.

Originally posted by Robtard
No, that wasn't it in the Iran deal thread. You've just forgotten again.

Was this related to the Iran deal thread? Your conceded your first argument to yourself.

Correcting yourself when you realize an error is the proper thing to do. It's being intellectually honest.

Originally posted by Robtard
Couple things:

- "Supreme Leader" is a title. Iran has a President. He's very influential though and does dictate policies. But in the end he could say "nay, they're Satan" while the President makes the deal and it's all good to save face.

- That could refer to Israel dissolving. He's said in the past he wants the Israel government gone and an Islamic one set in place. Not "we will nuke them to death!"

edit: But yeah, his mouthing off isn't good in terms of the deal.

First claim

Originally posted by Robtard
Actually, it does seem like the Ayatollah does have final say in all executive decisions.

So not sure how this deal's going through if he's so against it.

Corrected

I am fine with your correction, so you now agree he is a Maniac and has actual power more then just "empty words."

Just giving it back to you when I posted about Obama's deportation numbers, you seemed to want to shove it in my face. Even when I never made no such claim saying he deported less then anyone.

The question was never about whether or not the Ayatollah was a maniac. Even the biggest leftists can agree to that. I think they either underestimated his influence or worse, didn't take it seriously on any level.

Originally posted by Flyattractor


Why should he? Who can stop it?

Because even the people in this country who are 100% for this deal will only take so much before they say "enough".

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
First claim



Corrected

I am fine with your correction, so you now agree he is a Maniac and has actual power more then just "empty words."

Just giving it back to you when I posted about Obama's deportation numbers, you seemed to want to shove it in my face. Even when I never made no such claim saying he deported less then anyone.

In my first post I noted: "He's very influential though and does dictate policies". I fail to see how I implied some sort of "empty words" approach. I then went on to note that even my previous comment was underselling his position.

LoL, what now?

Originally posted by psmith81992
The question was never about whether or not the Ayatollah was a maniac. Even the biggest leftists can agree to that. I think they either underestimated his influence or worse, didn't take it seriously on any level.

In a way he suffered from "Trumpism". People didn't really take Trump seriously until..well, now even if Trump doesn't become President we've given him too much of a taste for politics for him to back out.

I think people dismissed the supreme leader because he did seem crazy.

Oh, I don't think he's literally insane. Sure he's a nut full of religious zeal, but he's not going to build a nuke and do the durrka durrka Jihad on Israel as some people think.

He loves his country and I'm sure he loves the power he has. He's not losing that just to give someone else a black eye.

Originally posted by Surtur
In a way he suffered from "Trumpism". People didn't really take Trump seriously until..well, now even if Trump doesn't become President we've given him too much of a taste for politics for him to back out.

I think people dismissed the supreme leader because he did seem crazy.

The left have a problem of underestimating the wrong people (Trump, Ayatollah), etc. I pray this Iran deal doesn't come back to bite them in the ass, because that will be a nightmare for that side of the political spectrum.

Originally posted by Robtard
Oh, I don't think he's literally insane. Sure he's a nut full of religious zeal, but he's not going to build a nuke and do the durrka durrka Jihad on Israel as some people think.

He loves his country and I'm sure he loves the power he has. He's not losing that just to give someone else a black eye.

So you think he doesn't really want to get rid of Israel as much as he claims?

Originally posted by Surtur
So you think he doesn't really want to get rid of Israel as much as he claims?

No, that I fully believe. Iran would love to have the Israeli government replaced with a Shi'a theocracy that's loyal to Iran, as it'd help consolidate Iran's power in the ME.

Too bad Israel would die before that happens, hence why Iran wants nukes.

Nuking Israel isn't the way to get a Shi'a government in Iran.

Iran nuking Israel means Israel (who is more powerful, even without US support) gets to nuke back again and again. See?

There is absolutely no reason why America should not be siding with Israel here. Iran is the problem Iran will always be the problem and giving them Nukes is just adding to the problem.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
There is absolutely no reason why America should not be siding with Israel here. Iran is the problem Iran will always be the problem and giving them Nukes is just adding to the problem.

What you just said makes no sense. If Iran is always the problem, then why is there no reason for the US to side with Israel?

LOL. I think you misread his statement.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
There is absolutely no reason why America should not be siding with Israel here. Iran is the problem Iran will always be the problem and giving them Nukes is just adding to the problem.

America isn't siding against Israel, if that makes you feel better. I also don't feel like Israel should dictate the US' foreign policies and relations.

The deal is so Iran doesn't get to build nukes. Now you can argue that Iran will break the deal etc., that's fine. But to state "give Iran nukes" is false.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL. I think you misread his statement.

Whoops

Iran doesn't give a damn about taking over Israel. They hate them. They won't them gone forever. I haven't read their posts other than what I've seen other people quote but I bet the same idiots (whom I have on ignore) who thought this deal was a good one are still refusing to see what's right in front of them. This is a religious war and fanatics like Iranians don't give a shit about taking over their enemies country and using it for themselves. They believe Israel has no right to exist just like many other countries in ME arrogantly believes this. Are liberals blind or just really ****ing dumb? Or perhaps, as I said in a previous thread, they secretly WANT ISRAEL DESTROYED but just won't admit it. I really think that's it considering libtards like OV and Robtard were always talking trash about Israeli's and saying stupid shit like "Iranians are pretty cool people. Much cooler than Israeli's". LMFAO.

When have I "talked trash about Israelis"?

Originally posted by Star428
Iran doesn't give a damn about taking over Israel. They hate them. They won't them gone forever. I haven't read their posts other than what I've seen other people quote but I bet the same idiots (whom I have on ignore) who thought this deal was a good one are still refusing to see what's right in front of them. This is a religious war and fanatics like Iranians don't give a shit about taking over their enemies country and using it for themselves. They believe Israel has no right to exist just like many other countries in ME arrogantly believes this. Are liberals blind or just really ****ing dumb? Or perhaps, as I said in a previous thread, they secretly WANT ISRAEL DESTROYED but just won't admit it. I really think that's it considering libtards like OV and Robtard were always talking trash about Israeli's and saying stupid shit like "Iranians are pretty cool people. Much cooler than Israeli's". LMFAO.

Ironically, this is how Palestinians feel. And people wonder why a two state solution won't work or why Israel has the testicular fortitude to respond to Palestinian threats. I remember some idiot calling Israel an apartheid state. I don't think I laughed that hard in a long time.

Originally posted by Robtard
America isn't siding against Israel, if that makes you feel better. I also don't feel like Israel should dictate the US' foreign policies and relations.

The deal is so Iran doesn't get to build nukes. Now you can argue that Iran will break the deal etc., that's fine. But to state "give Iran nukes" is false.


That's what i feel this is ultimately going to lead to. However, I do agree, if it's going to be done...,better surveillance the process on world media...,just for hindsight. Although, i am paranoid and have absolute no reason to trust, Iran.

Lots of Americans and Israelis seem to believe Iran is getting the deal of the century. I think the Iranians are just as disappointed though as they are.

Originally posted by Star428
Iran doesn't give a damn about taking over Israel. They hate them. They won't them gone forever. I haven't read their posts other than what I've seen other people quote but I bet the same idiots (whom I have on ignore) who thought this deal was a good one are still refusing to see what's right in front of them. This is a religious war and fanatics like Iranians don't give a shit about taking over their enemies country and using it for themselves. They believe Israel has no right to exist just like many other countries in ME arrogantly believes this. Are liberals blind or just really ****ing dumb? Or perhaps, as I said in a previous thread, they secretly WANT ISRAEL DESTROYED but just won't admit it. I really think that's it considering libtards like OV and Robtard were always talking trash about Israeli's and saying stupid shit like "Iranians are pretty cool people. Much cooler than Israeli's". LMFAO.

North Korea is run by even crazier lunatics who hate America and want to see it destroyed, and they have nukes. Why haven't those guys used them.

I stand by what I said. Israelis are in large part annoying, bossy, overbearing people with little patience and entitlement complexes. I know because I teach a half dozen of them in every class.

In Star's case, all he has is his unconditional Republican hard-on for all things Israeli.

No matter what you say does not take back or counter what the Supreme Douche Bag says.

To all the people here who said

"This deal will lead to other deals and talks with Iran"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-supreme-leader-rules-out-negotiations-with-u-s-beyond-nuclear-issues-1441794871

I bet you feel stupid now.

Anyone remember this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

I mean wake the **** up

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No matter what you say does not take back or counter what the Supreme Douche Bag says.


I agree, it's disappointing how their supreme leader seems satisfied with the isolation that Iran has been suffering in the last decade. However, I'm not really surprised. Iran's population wants to become a modern society and more freedom would mean more tolerance and less religious blindness, which is a risk for the theocracy in place.

And Americans are usually fat, lazy, overly sensitive and have entitlement issues, yet I love this country. What is your point? If Star has a hard on for all things Israeli, you take the opposite approach. Both of you look ridiculous.

Originally posted by psmith81992
And Americans are usually fat, lazy, overly sensitive and have entitlement issues, yet I love this country. What is your point? If Star has a hard on for all things Israeli, you take the opposite approach. Both of you look ridiculous.



Gee, thanks for the insult but I don't have a "hard on" (LOL) for all things Israeli. I'm not even Jewish. But Israel is a longtime ally of ours and my religious beliefs do dictate that I should respect them as God's chosen people.

Originally posted by Star428
Gee, thanks for the insult but I don't have a "hard on" (LOL) for all things Israeli. I'm not even Jewish. But Israel is a longtime ally of ours and my religious beliefs do dictate that I should respect them as God's chosen people.

Originally posted by Star428
Gee, thanks for the insult but I don't have a "hard on" (LOL) for all things Israeli. I'm not even Jewish. But Israel is a longtime ally of ours and my religious beliefs do dictate that I should respect them as God's chosen people.

I think the second part of your sentence is exactly what OV meant with "hard on", rather than that you get a literal erection thinking about Israel.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nuking Israel isn't the way to get a Shi'a government in Iran.

Iran nuking Israel means Israel (who is more powerful, even without US support) gets to nuke back again and again. See?

Yeah, but they seem unlikely to ever be able to get rid of Israel without some kind of show of force.

What happens when Iran realizes they have no chance of getting rid of Israel through strictly diplomatic means?

Originally posted by Surtur
Yeah, but they seem unlikely to ever be able to get rid of Israel without some kind of show of force.

What happens when Iran realizes they have no chance of getting rid of Israel through strictly diplomatic means?

Probably nothing; as is now. If Iran REALLY wanted to nuke Israel because that's just what Allah wants, they could have built nukes already. They're a rich economy and even with the combined efforts of the US and Israel tactical-striking suspected nuclear weapons sites, they'd still be able to make them.

edit: Found it. Here's a decent article and sums up fairly well why Israel isn't really Iran's target, the "I hate Jews" approach from the Iranian religious front is just that, a front. Iran has more to worry about than trying to destroy Israel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-did-iran-sign-on-to-a-deal-that-will-weaken-its-regional-hold/2015/07/31/a9f48494-354a-11e5-8e66-07b4603ec92a_story.html

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
To all the people here who said

"This deal will lead to other deals and talks with Iran"

http://www.wsj.com/articles/irans-supreme-leader-rules-out-negotiations-with-u-s-beyond-nuclear-issues-1441794871

I bet you feel stupid now.

Article has the same info as your previous article.

Let's see what his tune is in five years, especially if the younger generation starts becoming more pro West due to Iran flourishing even more without sanctions.

So more watch and see, when this deal only prevents war on obama's term, but commits us to war in the next 10. When in 10 years, somehow it won't be Obama's fault but they will hang it on Republicans saying

"Boehner and Mitch could have stopped this!"

Stop being a drama queen. Pull yourself together, man.

Originally posted by Robtard
Stop being a drama queen. Pull yourself together, man.

What did Osama Accomplish with barely nothing?

Barely nothing? He was very wealthy, estimates range from 50 to over 300 million.

Not to mention the mega millions Al-Qaeda is/was worth.

Originally posted by Robtard
Barely nothing? He was very wealthy, estimates range from 50 to over 300 million.

You said ISIS getting 3 million a day was barely nothing, now 50 million is a lot? Keep your story straight.

And how much is Iran getting again, 100 billion which is the tip of the iceberg..

Not a dime of HIS money.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You said ISIS getting 3 million a day was barely nothing, now 50 million is a lot? Keep your story straight.

And how much is Iran getting again, 100 billion which is the tip of the iceberg..

Context: That was in regards to your "They're going to take over the Middle East" alarmist days. How's that going anyways?

Estimates are around 50-60 billion after they pay of debts/creditors.

Originally posted by Robtard
Context: That was in regards to your "They're going to take over the Middle East" alarmist days. How's that going anyways?

Estimates are around 50-60 billion after they pay of debts/creditors.

Are you under a rock, they have caused this huge migration crisis...so yes my alarism was correct, quit being a ******* rob.

They have destroyed syria, iraq and have no end in sight..have you not been watching the news?

Your claim was 3 million a day was not a lot of money, in one month that is 90 million, so how is Osama's 50 million a lot now?

Yes, because "causing migration" was what you were on about back in the day concerning ISIS.

Osama's 50 isn't a lot when talking about 'taking and control countries'. But it's not a "barely nothing" and Al-Qaeda is (or at least was) worth hundreds of millions.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, because "causing migration" was what you were on about back in the day.

The migration is a effect of the cause of Isis taking over. Are you purposely being retarded now?

Are we still pretending that you weren't on a "ISIS will take over everything" binge back in the day?

So taking over Syria and Iraq and working their way outward, I guess you will never grasp anything, strawman.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So taking over Syria and Iraq and working their way outward, I guess you will never grasp anything, strawman.

lol

Why are all those people coming to Germany and where are they coming from there you?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So taking over Syria and Iraq and working their way outward, I guess you will never grasp anything, strawman.

Wtf, lolz.

Anyhow, they've taken over some sections.

http://www.businessinsider.com/isis-control-of-territory-2015-5

Originally posted by Robtard
Wtf, lolz.

Tell me why people are leaving Syria then.

Fleeing for their lives, as happens often in areas where there's fighting/war.

Or as some like to believe, to get free benefits and food-stamps from European countries.

I personally believe the former.

Who said they were fleeing to receive benefits? Your obviously taking a joke meme as canon fact.

So if they are leaving Syria, that means they are being forced out cause of the country being taken over.

Why do you think Russia is building up forces there?

That actually isn't a "joke", there are many who believe so.

People fleeing a war torn area doesn't automatically mean ISIS has taken over a country. There's also a Civil War going on.

Did you even read my link? ISIS controls some sections, but they're hardly in control of Syria and Iraq.

Originally posted by Robtard
That actually isn't a "joke", there are many who believe so.

People fleeing a war torn area doesn't automatically mean ISIS has taken over a country.

Did you even read my link? ISIS controls some sections, but they're hardly in control of Syria and Iraq.

And you do realize Syria is facing a losing battle...Syrian numbers fall as ISIS grows.

It's a multi-faceted war with many players.

One of which ISIS is not losing.

You seemed to be under the impression that it was Syria Vs ISIS. Civil war broke out in 2011, ISIS (among others) used that to their advantage to gain ground and resources in Syria.

Syrians refugees have been fleeing Syria since around 2011-12, at least. I don't think ISIS invaded into Syria until late 2013

And when did this migration crisis start?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
And when did this migration crisis start?

Good question, 2012. Seems to have happened not long after the Syrian Civil War broke out. Civil War breaks, less than a year later people flee the war-torn areas and refugees start pouring into neighboring countries.

http://www.mercycorps.org/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So taking over Syria and Iraq and working their way outward, I guess you will never grasp anything, strawman.

This is the most adorable thing I've ever seen.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good question, 2012. Seems to have happened not long after the Syrian Civil War broke out. Civil War breaks, less than a year later people flee the war-torn areas and refugees start pouring into neighboring countries.

http://www.mercycorps.org/articles/turkey-iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis

And if had taken out Asssad in the first place we would not be in this mess.

Because killing the crappy leader of a country worked out great in Iraq?

cause keeping him is working out so well now.

Alright smarty pants, how do you propose the US should have "taken out" Asad?

Sanction till revolt. Make the people see the world won't do business with their tyrannical regime.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sanction till revolt.

Um, the US did impose sanctions on Assad. There also was a revolt in Syria, it started the civil war.

edit: On 18 May 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed an Executive order putting into effect sanctions against Assad in an effort to pressure his regime "to end its use of violence against its people and begin transitioning to a democratic system that protects the rights of the Syrian people."

Taken from Assad's wiki, it is sourced.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Sanction till revolt. Make the people see the world won't do business with their tyrannical regime.
Like...what happened? And still hasn't gotten rid of Al-Assad?

And which paved the way for ISIS to expand into Syria?

You should also realize how little trade America had with Syria. The EU had more pull, but their sanctions haven't changed much. Iran, China, and Russia are bigger trade partners, and they like Assad just fine.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And which paved the way for ISIS to expand into Syria?


I told him this at 10:18am PST

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, the US did impose sanctions on Assad. There also was a revolt in Syria, it started the civil war.

edit: On 18 May 2011, U.S. President Barack Obama signed an Executive order putting into effect sanctions against Assad in an effort to pressure his regime "to end its use of violence against its people and begin transitioning to a democratic system that protects the rights of the Syrian people."

Taken from Assad's wiki, it is sourced.

So you admit Obama failed. I'm glad we reached this point.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you admit Obama failed. I'm glad we reached this point.
Failed by doing the thing you said he should have done.

Jesus. The hamsters in your brain must be running to an offkey rendition of Pharrel's Happy.

I led you to this.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you admit Obama failed. I'm glad we reached this point.
You goddamn right he failed.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
I led you to this.
Now you're just being aphasic.

Obama failed your ideology and broke ranks, he did what the republicans always do. How does that make you feel?

Originally posted by Robtard
Alright smarty pants, how do you propose the US should have "taken out" Asad?

Team up with the french army and kill the sucker and his allies was the only other call.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama failed your ideology and broke ranks, he did what the republicans always do. How does that make you feel?



Please don't compare Obama to any republican, TI. Republicans are nothing like that socialist and don't deserve to be insulted by being compared to him. Well, except for Bush maybe but at least Bush wasn't weak like him.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Now you're just being aphasic.

Thats not even a word.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Thats not even a word.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aphasic

He's saying you have brain damage and as a result, are unable to understand comprehend words/sentences.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aphasic

Insult all you want, When are you just going to admit, Obama failed in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much every where else.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Insult all you want, When are you just going to admit, Obama failed in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much every where else.

But he won America's heart

Oh, please. Give me a break. Guess you haven't seen the latest polls that show most Americans aren't happy with him.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So you admit Obama failed. I'm glad we reached this point.

At this point Obama can do no right in your mind. As pointed out, Obama did what you thought he should have done.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Insult all you want, When are you just going to admit, Obama failed in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much every where else.
You mean Somalia where the militants are steadily being pushed back by the African Union Forces?

Iraq, which refused to let American troops stay after the occupation and later regretted it so much that they begged Afghanistan not to make the same mistake just a few years later?

Yemen, where he helped negotiate a transfer of power that fell apart later because of the Houthi Rebels?

Afghanistan hasn't proven a total failure yet, and it's not as if he started that war.

On Syria, I agree his policy has been a failure with regards to Al-Assad and resolving the conflict, but with regards to ISIS I think he's done about as much as we can do without sending huge numbers of ground troops in.

What exactly do you think Obama should be doing in Yemen right now?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Insult all you want, When are you just going to admit, Obama failed in Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much every where else.

So... mostly where he didn't go, in other words?

Also on Iraq, he followed Bush's agreed pull-out time, where GWB had committed us to the Iraqi government to pull out. Afghanistan, we're not doing any worse there than we were before either.


Really, I don't know why you think it's Obama hurting our reputation when we had two wars fall apart due to poor planning and resources allocation during the previous term.



"Invade everyone at the drop of a hat" isn't 'strong,' it's short-sighted and costs many lives and tons of money- over three trillion dollars from Bush's wars, in fact.


Originally posted by Star428
Oh, please. Give me a break. Guess you haven't seen the latest polls that show most Americans aren't happy with him.


Gallup: Current Obama approval, 49%, disapproval, 46%.


Which should be no surprise to anyone. His ratings have fluctuated around that level forever. His approval ratings barely change ever! They are some of the most static and least changing approval ratings in existence. This was pointed out last time you brought 'em up, though they're actually a bit better now than they were then- but they'll probably slide back to the mid-40s like they always do after they move in either direction.

Originally posted by Robtard
At this point Obama can do no right in your mind. As pointed out, Obama did what you thought he should have done.

He does good with deportation, I applaud his efforts in that area. He does well with working with congress. He does so so on economy I don't give him uber praise because that's the free market.

I think he does do things right.

Who was it that said here "The people are not against US, they have changed!"

Oh yea it was Omega..

Oh shit look at this, the people speaking death and destruction to Israel and America.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/09/18/iran-anti-america-pleitgen-pkg.cnn

I think most people are realizing that this wasn't a good deal on any level. I still don't fault the group that believes "any deal is better than no deal".

Some rally = "all the people"

You should probably look into the history of Iran/US relations. (You won't)

Originally posted by Robtard
Some rally = "all the people"

You should probably look into the history of Iran/US relations. (You won't)

Gun violence=all the people

I royally butt raped you yesterday and you rage quit, is this your day of revenge?

WAAAATAAAMINUTE

Is this not enough people either?

When would enough people be enough for you Rob?

N_huJDggNa0

Except of course no one here made that claim about guns and violence

Another attempt to deflect away from your failure and it failed.

No, every time some one here uses the word generalizing about Islam, I will use that as a counter.

Anyways you didn't answer my question.

And you will fail, because it's not an proper "counter"

Already covered:

Originally posted by Robtard
Some rally = "all the people"

You should probably look into the history of Iran/US relations. (You won't)

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
WAAAATAAAMINUTE

Is this not enough people either?

When would enough people be enough for you Rob?

N_huJDggNa0

Reposting that vid after it was covered on page 6

What proof do you have the people are friendly with the US

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What proof do you have the people are friendly with the US

Do you know how stupid that sounds?

Um, reality?

Like I said, you should probably look into the history of Iran/US relations. (you won't).

Here's a little view:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/the-iran-we-dont-see-a-tour-of-the-country-where-people-love-americans/258166/

Not that it will matter, since you decided long ago that Iran = evil and that all Iranians hate America.

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, reality?

Like I said, you should probably look into the history of Iran/US relations. (you won't).

Here's a little view:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/the-iran-we-dont-see-a-tour-of-the-country-where-people-love-americans/258166/

Not that it will matter, since you decided long ago that Iran = evil and that all Iranians hate America.

While all Iranians certainly don't hate America lets be honest. Iran (or at least its leadership) became enemies to the US after the fall of the Shah and nothing has changed since.

Originally posted by Robtard
Um, reality?

Like I said, you should probably look into the history of Iran/US relations. (you won't).

Here's a little view:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/the-iran-we-dont-see-a-tour-of-the-country-where-people-love-americans/258166/

Not that it will matter, since you decided long ago that Iran = evil and that all Iranians hate America.

Iran hates America..and their isn't a damn thing you can make me chance my mind. I can't believe you are going to try and win or rationalize this with "you are generalizing Iran."

Originally posted by psmith81992
While all Iranians certainly don't hate America lets be honest. Iran (or at least its leadership) became enemies to the US after the fall of the Shah and nothing has changed since.
I think that was the original reason, but since then they've hated America because it's a convenient scapegoat.

You know whats even funnier all the claimers here that say I hate Iran, I actually want to visit Iran and wanted too for a long time but now with all this craziness, I can't go.

I don't think you hate Iran.

Anything's possible if you have the money: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33818391

I don't kill animals:/

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What proof do you have the people are friendly with the US

Do you know how stupid that sounds?




He actually claimed they are friendly with the U.S.?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Gun violence=all the people

I royally butt raped you yesterday and you rage quit, is this your day of revenge?


Laughed my ass off when I read where you quoted him when he said to lookinto the history of Iran/US relations. LMFAO. Guess he forgot about or is completely ignorant of the hostage crisis they caused during the 80's on an airliner. Guess he also thinks them partying and dancing in the streets when 9/11 tragedy happened is a act of friendship too.




Damn good analogy regarding "gun violence"

Originally posted by Star428
He actually claimed they are friendly with the U.S.?

Yes he said the massive crowds of tens of thousands chanting death to USA and Israel was generalizing people who like the US.