[quote who="Cikomyr" reply="16" id="2566012"] the "Democrats" are not a unified monolithic socialist entity like you make it seem. Nor are they anti-americans, nor do they act with the idea to "Destroy america" in their mind.[quote]

Not all Germans were Nazis, nor all Soviets communists.  But the LEADERS were and that was all it took.  Not all democrats are, but the LEADERS are and that is all it takes.

You channel Jimmy Carter very well.

No he is not doing his best.  He is doing his worst to make sure it comes about.  He is driven by a utopian ideology that has no basis in reality.  And when shown that his way is the wrong way, instead of correcting the deficiency, he doubles down.  It is no coincidence that the despots of the world have been emboldened by his election.  They see a spiny mealy mouth jelly fish that is a paper tiger. 

He loves to talk the talk, but when it gets down to brass tacks, he is incapable of walking the walk.

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg here.  England is another kettle of spies in itself.

Can you tell me, seriously, what kind of action taken would have convinced you that Obama is dealing with the Iranian problem? What is your benchmark for what you'd consider a proper action?

Because if what you consider a proper action is something that is simply politically/economically undesirable for everybody (ex: military strike), I am going to call you of bad faith. Asking your president to start another economical and energetic crisis just to prove a point is not being reasonable about the situation, but just wanting him to see coming down crashing regardless of the circumstances.

Do?  Simple.  Ostracize.  I do not (yet) condone bombing Iran.  They really do not merit it (they are pissing in their own pot).  But they should not be treated as equals in the stage of world leaders.  They are not.  Obama is trying to be their friend,and they bit his hand (that is a reflection of his myopia).  Obama is too stupid to understand one simple fact about humans.  Not all are saints.

Ostracize? How do you Ostracize a country? You refuse to do trade with it? You refuse to talk to it?

You know, technically, not talking to Iran would have the exact same effect that right now. It would allow them to gain time without loosing any ground, as their regular trade partners will still be talking to them anyway.

Waitwaitwaitwait. He is trying to be their friend? How do you figure? By calling for "Crippling sanctions"? For calling for softer sanctions when he realised that Russia and China won't follow him on that?

Is that how you make a friend? How exactly has Obama acted in a friendly way toward Iran?

It is not easy, but has been done.  The reason that Iran did not kick Saddam's butt back in the 80s was because the US ostracized them.  Their military was falling apart.  And the reason that Saddam was over thrown so quickly in 2003 was for the same reason (there was cheating, but remember all those sob stories about starving Republican Guards?).  It is doable and effective, but not in the short term.  If you want immediate results, you have to bomb the hell out of them.  More effective, but again more dangerous from an international standpoint.

Love that - waitwaitwait!!  calling for?  I am calling for a million dollars!  So what?  I am calling for world peace.  So what?  Empty words.  There is no force behind them.  They know he is a paper tiger so the rest of the world ignores him!  In Obama's case, he can crap in one hand and "call for" in the other.  Guess one will produce results?

EVERY president has had the problem of Russia and China (Or German and Japan).  None have been this ineffectual.  Why would they listen to him?  They know they can make him back down.

Well, pry tell me, what do you call his negociation rounds? I mean, he did went to many countries trying to convince Iran's partners to enforce sanctions. There is a limit on what you can do.

How can you do that if Russia and China won't even join you in the ostracizing? I mean, what is the point of sanctions, ostracize that are violated by Iran's main trade partners anyway?

There is little that can be done by diplomacy. There disaster that can be done by military strikes. That's the problem Obama is facing. Obama hasn't really made any more headways in the problem than Bush.

So you are effectively comparind 1 year of mandate to all the other presidencies? I don't buy your criticism. The guy has tried to build sanctions against Iran. He is keeping, even reinforcing most of the military deals done with Poland to oppose Russia, but Russia still got a free hand in the region. It's a problem that has started under Bush and won't take a few months to resolve.

The USA are about as influencial world-wide as they were at the end of the Bush era. There haven't been new wildfires erupting because you changed president.

When?  Where?  Not in this reality.

Hmmm... seems we were treated daily to stories about starving Iraqis - even though France, Germany and Russia cheated.  Seems to me we were treated to daily stories of dead iranians - even though they were palling with China.

That is where we diverge.  I say nothing has been done yet by diplomacy.  As indicated earlier "call for" is not diplomacy, it is lip service.  Obama has a lot of lip, but not much else.

Again lip service versus action.  The world knows that Obama is not good on his words, so they do not pay him heed.  Look at the last 4 presidents (that would exclude Carter which would be the model for Obama) in their first year.  There was not this much impotence in those 4 combined.  it is not a matter of time, it is simply a matter of intent.  Obama only talks, and does no more (except to our allies - then he acts like a bully).  All the others backed up their "talk" with steel.

Unlike a Forest, wild fires do not spring up over night.  The reason there have been none is because Bush ensured there would be none.  But since Bush, NK has launched a missle at Hawaii, Iran has set a time table for a Nuke, and Russia and China have told Obama to go to hell.  Not bad for a year.  It will only get worse.

You know, I just looked up to get some information on Reagan's first year in office, and I can hardly find anything more than lip service there too. However, he put into motions many elements that only became evident in his latter years in office.

Your view of reality is... questionnable..

He met with Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, U.K., France, Germany, Israel, Turkey and quite a few other less influential countries. He managed to get compromises out of some, not so much out of others.

Yet, ostracizing won't do anything to stop Iran from getting nukes, which is the initial beef you peoples seemed to have about Obama. There is just no easy options on the table for your nation about it.

Hehehe - yea that is why Iran released the hostages as soon as he was sworn in.  Like Fonzie said, you dont have to get into a fight all the time, but you had to have hit someone  once.  I think Reagan demonstrated that.  he did not say "Let's talk", he said here is the rules.  And those that would not play, paid.  That is the legacy of his Presidency.

Geez!  Can you get any more politically correct?  just say whacked, insane, stupid, moronic.....

On what?  I meat with the Rajah of India to discuss the price of rice in china.  That helped world peace, right?  He also bowed to everyone that he could get to.  That showed a strong leader!!! (not)

Now?  no.  It is too late.  It was not too late a year ago.

Wait.

It has been proven that Iran was ready to release the hostages before Reagan take office, but the Republicans wanted to use it as a publicity stunt.

Reagan has absolutely nothing to do with the liberation. The hostages were actually held longer because of his P.R. team.

You deserve better

You just want to criticise him no matter what happens, no matter what he does, apparently. You don't want to see anything he might have done, as it is just funnier/more political to blame him for whatever happens or doesn't.

In short, a Nay-sayer. The very kind of mentality that prevented any kind of compromise on Obama's part in the recent debate over healthcare.

It was too late a year ago. It wasn't too late 5 years ago.

Reagan was elected in Nov. 1980, he took office in Jan 1981. Before that, during the campaign, he made it clear he was not going to take any crap off the Iranians. So kindly explain how he managed to work that out with the Ayatollah? (feel free to show your proof, though) Some like something one might read in a Jimmy Carter apologist's article. If president elects are so potent, why didn't the Taliban surrender when Obama on his inauguration?

Oh.. maybe you are right.

Hell. The hostages have been released minutes after Reagan's inauguration. I mean, Reagan sure was efficient about it, eh? It takes me longer to cook a pizza. One really has to wonder why he wasn't simply the Second Coming of Christ.

/sarcasm