Gotta love the Obama foreign policy

[Blitzers]

As Rhodes admits, it's not that hard to shape the narrative. "All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus," Rhodes said. "Now they don't. They call us to explain to them what's happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."

When I suggested that all this dark metafictional play seemed a bit removed from rational debate over America's future role in the world, Rhodes nodded. "In the absence of rational discourse, we are going to discourse the [expletive] out of this," he said. "We had test drives to know who was going to be able to carry our message effectively, and how to use outside groups like Ploughshares, the Iran Project and whomever else. So we knew the tactics that worked." He is proud of the way he sold the Iran deal. "We drove them crazy," he said of the deal's opponents.

Full story on the Iran Deal of Deceit:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/obamas...rticle/2002252

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Blitzers [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That's a sea change. They literally know nothing."
[/url]

It's kind of a moot point when you consider that the people that do know what their talking about support the deal

http://news.mit.edu/2015/us-iran-nuclear-deal-0724

The news doesn't deal with people that know what their talking about anymore because its better ratings to pit a rightwing idiot against a leftwing idiot and watch people on either side blow up. When there is an expert on, it is often from a think tank with biased mission statement on their site for everyone to see.

I've heard two arguments against the Iran Nuclear Deal and there both bad.

1) "We could have got a better deal." Whatever..

2) "This will give more money to Iran for terrorism." Anything that gives Iran any money you could say that about, because a certain percentage of people in Iran support terrorism. That number goes up when we do things like put sanctions on them however. So while we might succeed in preventing a relatively small amount of terrorism funding, we fan the flames and increase their recruiting by doing so. (Note: sanctions kill people. There's a lot of poor in these countries that were barely making it before the sanctions, and straight up starved to death).

Permanent sanctions are a retarded solution for trying to change a country. We don't want to kill all Iranians -- we would like them to eventually have a revolution and overthrow the current theocratic regime. Sanctions don't help this goal unless we can use them as leverage.

Edit: every American wanting to understand the middle east can start by reading the Persepolis graphic novel. It's important to remember Iran was not always a country of religious fanatics, and there is still a strong secular core there.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

... we would like them to eventually have a revolution and overthrow the current theocratic government.

Exactly. It will work out a lot better for us next time. In the mean time, we need to keep the wolves fed as a show of solidarity for the sheep.

Allahu Akbar! ^^

[Lune]

And then there's Republican foreign policy: Violate the US constitution and invite a foreign head of state, Netanyahu, to address Congress behind Obama's back, unilaterally attempting to sabotage progress with Iran so that the United States can defend Israeli interests down to the last American soldier. I'm sure afterwards Boehner was passing out AIPAC checks on the floor of Congress, as he was known to do.

I'll take Obama foreign policy over that any day. At least he had the balls to stand up to the Israelis who control the House and make a deal with Iran.

[Blitzers]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And then there's Republican foreign policy: Violate the US constitution and invite a foreign head of state, Netanyahu, to address Congress behind Obama's back, unilaterally attempting to sabotage progress with Iran so that the United States can defend Israeli interests down to the last American soldier. I'm sure afterwards Boehner was passing out AIPAC checks on the floor of Congress, as he was known to do.

I'll take Obama foreign policy over that any day. At least he had the balls to stand up to the Israelis who control the House and make a deal with Iran.

So then your saying?

As long as the guy I like is doing the lying, I'm ok with it.

This is why there will be blood.

[Gorillas]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And then there's Republican foreign policy: Violate the US constitution and invite a foreign head of state, Netanyahu, to address Congress behind Obama's back, unilaterally attempting to sabotage progress with Iran so that the United States can defend Israeli interests down to the last American soldier. I'm sure afterwards Boehner was passing out AIPAC checks on the floor of Congress, as he was known to do.

I'll take Obama foreign policy over that any day. At least he had the balls to stand up to the Israelis who control the House and make a deal with Iran.

Are you seriously talking about Obama having balls?

Obama had no sack in Egypt
Obama had no sack in Syria
Obama had no sack in dealing with Iran (how those middle tests and inspections going?)
Obama had no sack in any deal with China.
Obama had no sack and still has no sack when deals with Putin
The only time Obama has any balls behind that black ass is when he's crying about how mean the GOP is or how mean Israel is, wowowowow tough on the two factions that can't retaliate in any meaningful way
Obama doesn't have any sack when it comes to Cuba either, they set him up for Commie photo shoots and no one even met him at the airport

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Gorillas [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Are you seriously talking about Obama having balls?

Obama had no sack in Egypt
Obama had no sack in Syria
Obama had no sack in dealing with Iran (how those middle tests and inspections going?)
Obama had no sack in any deal with China.
Obama had no sack and still has no sack when deals with Putin
The only time Obama has any balls behind that black ass is when he's crying about how mean the GOP is or how mean Israel is, wowowowow tough on the two factions that can't retaliate in any meaningful way
Obama doesn't have any sack when it comes to Cuba either, they set him up for Commie photo shoots and no one even met him at the airport

Making stupid, hawkish geopolitical decisions so that you "look tough" is the most categorically limp-dicked approach of them all.

We can thank our lucky stars a Republican wasn't in office the last 4 years or we'd have American troops on the ground in Syria right now getting blown up by IED's, wasting billions of dollars, and accomplishing absolutely nothing while ISIS hides among civilians and waits until we withdraw.

No wonder Republicans admire Putin so much.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

we'd have American troops on the ground in Syria right now

ftfy

lol 0bama is a peace dove lolol

[Gorillas]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Making stupid, hawkish geopolitical decisions so that you "look tough" is the most categorically limp-dicked approach of them all.

We can thank our lucky stars a Republican wasn't in office the last 4 years or we'd have American troops on the ground in Syria right now getting blown up by IED's, wasting billions of dollars, and accomplishing absolutely nothing while ISIS hides among civilians and waits until we withdraw.

No wonder Republicans admire Putin so much.

This all sounds great as long as you ignore the fact that Obama has drones that could have decimated any target in Syria before Russia took the reigns.

[Patriam1066]

Libya.

Enough said. No democrat will ever make that not a tremendous mistake. It was a decision that will, considering the Sahel region, have more dramatic consequences than Syria and Iraq (Bush). Time will demonstrate this.

As for the Iran deal, engaging with China and Russia didn't change their human rights situations. In addition, we lost millions of jobs to China. Obama doesn't care about engaging Iran or Cuba, he wants to make GM and Boeing more profit. There will be ZERO human rights concessions. I know y'all don't give a fuck, but some of us don't like our people being slaughtered without trials for expressing opinions.

It's amazing to me how "liberals" can not see the machinations of banks and corporations behind Obama's foreign policy but they're convinced that Bush was the antichrist. Bush and Obama were identical in everything but complexion, and as we know, that isn't what matters. What matters is the content of their character, a criterion in which both came far short of what the United States deserves

PS: thanks Obama for defending Saudi Arabia and resupplyjng them with bombs as they decimate civilian populations in Yemen. Wow, what a great and inspiring leader!