DescentBB

Seems the US govt is upset over the possibility that Israel may have spied on the US and Iran talks. My my, how quick we forgot that allied foreign leaders were upset we were spying on them.

Israel: sexual offender.

Well the U.S. could have kept the blinds closed in the shower.

Isaac wrote:Israel: sexual offender.

Well the U.S. could have kept the blinds closed in the shower.

Well, what would you do if your frenemy was talking to your mortal enemy about something that may mean the end of your existence?

ThunderBunny wrote:

Isaac wrote:Israel: sexual offender.

Well the U.S. could have kept the blinds closed in the shower.

Well, what would you do if your frenemy was talking to your mortal enemy about something that may mean the end of your existence?

Isn't talking better than all out war in the entire Middle East? That's what it would take just to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, because we would certainly piss off everyone in that region of the world that we haven't already pissed off in the past, especially local U.S. friendly Iranians, of which there are quite a few in that country to start with. Then we'd get fully involved in a major Holy War just to finish the job, the genocide of every Muslim in the region and maybe on the planet, just to win. Are we ready for that?

tunnelcat wrote:

Isn't talking better than all out war in the entire Middle East?

Seems that is where we are headed. The Saudis are looking to send their air force and a 100k troops into Yemen.

go get a map, Woody, and you might see why Saudi Arabia cares.

callmeslick wrote:go get a map, Woody, and you might see why Saudi Arabia cares.

You are so programed to counter my posts that you throw this up?
Did I ask why the Saudi's care?

you said we were heading to an all-out regional war, and then cited the Saudi's acting in their backyard as proof?

callmeslick wrote:you said we were heading to an all-out regional war, and then cited the Saudi's acting in their backyard as proof?

And this has what to do with getting a map why?

because I assumed you had no clue that Yemen abuts the Kingdom or you wouldn't have made such a ludicrous claim about war engulfing the entire region.

Perhaps you should re-read my post. Perhaps you missed the word "seems". But lets take a look at how peaceful the middle east is. Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Yemen are all involved in fighting. Israel and the Palestinians are off again on again at war. Seem to me Egypt might be half assed at peace along with Kuwait and Qatar. So would you like to explain just how war is not engulfing the middle east?

slick is likely oblivious to the role Iran plays in the Saudis concerns with Yemen as well as other regional hotspots.
Or he knows about it but has to deny the reality out of dogmatic adherence to his party's narrative. He can't acknowledge it because a 'conservative' person has pointed to it as a factor.

woodchip wrote:So would you like to explain just how war is not engulfing the middle east?

Because it's been that way as long as anyone can remember? Please show me a time when everyone wasn't fighting over there. Man, you tards get so worked up over what the media hands you. Try reading history books instead. Sounds like most of you need a relaxing hobby, like fishing, though I bet you would probably blame Obama for any fish that got away.

vision wrote:

woodchip wrote:So would you like to explain just how war is not engulfing the middle east?

Because it's been that way as long as anyone can remember? Please show me a time when everyone wasn't fighting over there. Man, you tards get so worked up over what the media hands you. Try reading history books instead. Sounds like most of you need a relaxing hobby, like fishing, though I bet you would probably blame Obama for any fish that got away.

Not only does your answer not address the question but it seems to be a suggestion that the violent conditions over there are only a legitimate factor for Obama to react to but no one else can consider them when making a judgement about his reaction.

Will Robinson wrote:Not only does your answer not address the question...

What question is that? How war is not engulfing the Middle East? Engulfing is a present participle of engulf. Rather, war has engulfed the Middle East for decades. None of you actually give a ★■◆● about any of the people there. What would you have the United States do? Be the World Police? That hasn't worked out very well in the past, why would it work this time? And who to police? Saudi Arabia, whose 2nd largest export is jihad, or Iran whose 2nd largest export is anti-Zionist rhetoric? Most of what you see over there is the result of a Cold War between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and that condition is beneficial to the United States. Where is the incentive to do something about it?

Oh wait, Obama something or other... Your obsession with that man is frightening.

Judging from your comments in regards to the likelihood of being a victim of terrorism…etc., one can only gather that you don’t give a ★■◆● about them either.

Spidey wrote:Judging from your comments in regards to the likelihood of being a victim of terrorism…etc., one can only gather that you don’t give a ★■◆● about them either.

I care about human rights, universally. The solution to human rights abuses almost never includes bombs.

Right, so I guess you can plan a trip to Africa, to negotiate with Boko Haram to get those latest abductees back.

Let me know...maybe I will chip in a few bucks for the plane ride.

Spidey wrote:Right, so I guess you can plan a trip to Africa, to negotiate with Boko Haram to get those latest abductees back.

It's not just about negotiations. The goal is to help foster an environment where things like that don't happen in the first place. Now that they have, special attention should be given to strengthening the weak ares in that region. Of course, that would require caring, which most people don't.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Right, so I guess you can plan a trip to Africa, to negotiate with Boko Haram to get those latest abductees back.

It's not just about negotiations. The goal is to help foster an environment where things like that don't happen in the first place. Now that they have, special attention should be given to strengthening the weak ares in that region. Of course, that would require caring, which most people don't.

When a school full of children is invaded by murderers you don't just surround it and leave them in place and try to make sure other nearby schools are murderer free as a solution. Sometimes you have to send in the SWAT team as a part of the solution when it gets as bad as it is.
And especially when dealing with a terrorist type threat you can't let them take territory and legitimize them with negotiations and consessions or you put the other locations at greater risk for the same thing.

Will Robinson wrote:When a school full of children is invaded by murderers you don't just surround it and leave them in place and try to make sure other nearby schools are murderer free as a solution. Sometimes you have to send in the SWAT team as a part of the solution when it gets as bad as it is.

That all depends, now doesn't it? Every situation requires a risk-based analysis. And sometimes there isn't a SWAT team available. Or, you think you have a good plan and something goes horribly wrong. Now take your school and multiply it to the size of a country. The risk of error gets multiplied too.