Biden's Iran Policy
Can Biden's policy on Iran be clearly defined by this meme?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Joe Biden ’s decision to strike 85 targets in Iraq and Syria on Friday in response to the death of three American soldiers last weekend amounted to a middle ground: short of a direct strike inside Iran, which would almost certainly spark a wider war, but still more expansive than any action the US has taken so far against the groups it accuses of destabilizing the region.
There is little belief inside the American government that Biden’s actions will completely shut down the constellation of Iranian proxy groups that have been responsible for escalating attacks on American bases and commercial shipping lanes in the Red Sea. A longer-term solution remains elusive, as Biden enters a reelection year while also pursuing a broad diplomatic breakthrough he hopes could transform the larger region.
Whether the 125 precision-guided missiles fired over 30 minutes Friday night will have the effect of preventing further attacks on Americans is a question officials aren’t yet ready to answer.
Rip Biden, Blame it on Trump, Rip Iran but try to be civil while doing so and do not attack other NT members
Enjoy
Tags
Who is online
426 visitors
How many more Americans must die before the U.S. addresses the real issue
I'm looking forward to the possible opportunity of permanently solving some problems after the next election is called.
Me too. Hopefully the beginning of the eradication of liberalism will begin.
That ideology is the true danger to this country.
If Biden v Trump, who can we vote for who has a chance to win and thus solve problems?
You suggest that we should vote for someone other than Biden or Trump if those are the nominees.
Thus I asked who we can vote for who has a chance to win and thus solve problems.
It seems more than half the country does not want either one. If they voted for who they thought would be best for the country and not vote for one just to keep the other guy out we would break that cycle sooner rather than later. Even if a third candidate did not win this time there is a chance the 2 main parties would be put on notice that they better start nominating people that do more than pander to the extreme.
If you listen to the pundits the choice is either the end of democracy or a country invaded and driven into the ground.
You mean you don't think a couple hundred knuckleheads led by a guy with a fred Flintstone grand poobah hat could end democracy as we know it?
You cannot name one person who could win the election and thus solve problems?
The rationalization is mind boggling. I would rather hear people say they are voting for someone because they like their policies. I might not agree but I respect the choice.
Who?
Yep, yet some will end up voting for someone they have no faith will do a good job.
Democracy at work. At least if I had a student loan paid off I could say my vote was paid for, but alas I was one of the people that figured I would have to pay it back on my own.
You clearly have no answer and instead of admitting this, play the same tired game of claiming you already answered.
If Trump v Biden, there is no third person who could win the presidency in 2024 and thus solve problems as you suggested.
I did not ask you anything in my last comment. I made a claim:
If Trump v Biden, there is no third person who could win the presidency in 2024 and thus solve problems as you suggested.
Prove me wrong.
Yep. If you like them, vote for them. If you don't like them don't vote for them., vote for whomever you feel is the best candidate.
Novel concept.
Of course you cannot prove me wrong.
If Trump v Biden, there is no third person who could win the presidency in 2024 and thus solve problems as you suggested.
You claim to have offered this mystery person yet it is obvious that you have not because you cannot. Nobody can, and anyone with even basic knowledge of politics knows this.
Dead horse by five lengths.
That's how I'm doing it.
Out of curiosity, do you think that anyone involved in running for PotUS in 2024 is capable of that?
Yes I'm aware. Do you think he understood the context of 1.1 in this thread?
Neither to my satisfaction.
And yet you would vote for one of them?
And all our problems are solved by the same guy that created them. Cool
He has only been in government for 50 years, I guess another 4 is what he needs
Lots of words but no name.
You clearly have not provided a name before as evidenced by your inability to do so now.
Nobody can provide such a name and thus in a Biden v Trump race there is no way to vote for someone who could win the presidency and thus be empowered to solve problems as you suggested.
Apparently.
Way I see it we all are on step 40 of a 500 step trip, and a lot can happen in the next 9 months.
I'm keeping in mind the conventions usually holds a surprise AND the usual Oct surprise that attempts to swing an election.
Trump or Biden or both can keel over dead in the next few months, someone could step in at the last moment and be "drafted" by either party.
Let's not forget the usual crop of perennial third party candidates that always shows up ( West, Stein? Someone else? Tiger king anyone?).
Until theNov ballot is formalized and ready for use, all the discussion so far has been partisan bullshit with an air of a pig stye.
Yes it might not be Trump v Biden.
That is why I included “if Biden v Trump”.
Because I have repeatedly stated that there is no-one who meets your criteria.
You cannot name a person who meets your criteria so you use dishonest tactics like the strawman you just posted.
Doesn't matter if it is or isn't them, people will use their own yardsticks and methods to either choose or disqualify any candidate.
What most are usually to polite to do is tell someone that disagrees , that that person's opinion doesn't matter.
Personally I have already disqualified a couple of the candidates, but it's early like I said , and the final ballot is not formalized, once it is I'll make a choice that I think is one I can live with and one in the best interests of the country .
I would also caution someone about asking the who question, I have already decided my answer will be ," None of YOUR fucking business."
end of discussion at that point.
people will use their own yardsticks and methods to either choose or disqualify any candidate.
Well that just makes way too much sense.
Because you have no answer. Nobody does.
If Biden v. Trump in 2024, one of those two will be elected PotUS. There is no third person who could win the presidency.
You have not answered the question even once.
You cannot possibly answer the question. Nobody can.
Not the point.
How much weight do you really give that?
Weight? Are you asking how likely it will NOT be Biden v Trump?
Yes, in your opinion of course.
I am not going to try to quantify that. The impact of Trump being convicted (a possibility) is unpredictable.
Other than that and health reasons, Biden v. Trump seems inevitable.
What is your opinion?
None of the ‘answers’ in your post are for the question asked.
Who is the person other than Trump or Biden —given a Biden v Trump race— who could win the presidency in 2024 and solve the problems you alluded to?
Better yet - why can't/won't any of you discuss the topic, which is "Biden's Iran Policy".
[Deleted]
But we are still beating a dead horse!
You want 1name ?
Setting aside parties ,politics and a crapton of other shit?
One person that could POSSIBLY run against both mentioned and have a good chance of winning.
Michelle Obama.
Not that I would vote for her, but she would be the one I would say would beat both the others.
Best thing that happens on this site lately - nothing new - all same old rehashed shyte.
Michelle Obama is not running. If she were, that would be a decent name. I too would have offered that. Actually, I would have asked Texan if he is then going to vote for Michelle. Oprah too, if we include people who are not running.
But as of now, she is not available except as a write in.
Also, per the scenario, she would have to run third party since the scenario is Biden v Trump.
If that were the case, I think Michelle might wind up splitting the D vote and handing the presidency to Trump.
But for those voting for someone in 2024 with a Biden v Trump contest who could solve problems, there is nobody to vote for who could win the presidency.
You asked for one name that could take on both, that's the name.
I don't think she would split the Dem vote even as an Indy she would outright take All the Dem votes if a candidate and Dems make a truthful comparison , Biden and the last 3 years of folly would die on the vine from lack of support.
A key qualification is that this name could win. Michelle is not a candidate. Do you believe she could win as a writein?
I even took your scenario and agreed with qualification. I would ask that you at least recognize the scenario I presented.
I went back and looked, no where did I see the person had to be an actual candidate or even interested in running, the name as far as I am concerned stands,with no moving of goalposts after the fact.
Do I think she could win if she ran? Hands down.
As a write in ?same difference ,hands down.
And it wouldn't be the first time the people of any party decided the party have moved away from them, and in that case, they have no obligation to said party and they can and will vote for those that they think have the same interests and concerns,something I see very lacking in today's stated political policies.
What I find interesting is trump was suppose to get us in a war if elected. Sometime during his term, Bidens got us almost but not quite involved in 2 with a 3rd on the back burner with china over Taiwan, if I were the Taiwanese I would be shitting pyramid sized bricks about if I trusted the current admin or not.
With that ,I'm going to bed.
[Deleted]
Spot on. Which speaks to the “intellect” of those who would vote for her.
You did not see where I stated that the individual had to have a chance to win? Without that qualification there would be plenty of names one can offer. The question would be rather pointless.
It started here:
… and was repeated and paraphrased many times in the thread.
The context too was about getting someone in office (other than Trump or Biden) who could solve problems. So if Biden v Trump we are talking about someone else who could realistically be elected to the presidency in 2024.
Michelle is not a candidate. If she were to become a candidate, I would agree with you, as noted. But I repeat my qualification that her necessarily running third party (since the scenario has Biden as the D) would likely give the presidency to Trump.
As for write-in, I do not see anyone ever winning the presidency as a write-in candidate.
Now if we change the scenario to Michelle v Trump, Michelle wins easily. Too bad the Ds cannot seem to pull that off.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Absolutely amazing isn't it? Lets just vote for some random former first lady who has no accomplishments and never held a political office or ran a business, To me that is the pinnacle of ignorance. At least Hillary had the qualifications.
The democrat bench must be barren if we are down to selecting former first lady's, we zero qualifications.
Your correct that as of right now, I can't say who I will vote for come Nov , but it is still early in the process. I will wait and see what comes out of the parties conventions during the summer. I will also wait and see what the final Nov ballot offers for choices across the spectrum and board.
I CAN say who I am not voting for if I choose, but it isn't anyone's business whom I have eliminated or why. That I will for the most part keep to myself. And I am highly unlikely to change my mind once I have eliminated someone.
When it comes to naming a person who could beat either of the 2 parties candidates, we discussed this on a different article, the person would need to have major national name recognition, be more or less real scandal free, and have to have a majority appeal to the voters and be willing to take on the task.
One can accept or reject this as they see fit, others opinions do not matter in this case.
I agree that Michelle has no experience for the job. But much of the electorate votes like this were a popularity contest.
The Trump phenomenon has illustrated that picking the best person for the job is not the collective priority.
Michelle Obama wholeheartedly supports the reelection of President Biden so it follows that those who would likely vote for her over Trump will vote for President Biden in November.
Another reason to disregard both her thoughts of candidacy and her opinion.
The idea that Michelle Obama has no experience is laughable. After the travesty of 2016 "experience" is no longer a requirement.
Donald Trump was a game show host and a crooked businessman when he was elected.
She has no executive expienece, we would have better luck just appointing a fortune 500 CEO, if anyone thinks Michelle Obama is qualified to be president they are fucking morons. She is as qualified as Melania trump.
Who gives a fuck ? Donald Trump has no experience in telling the truth, and didnt in 2016 either.
Michelle Obama would embarrass the living shit out of Trump on a debate stage.
Michelle is eligible and Melania is not based on birthright...
" After the travesty of 2016 "experience" is no longer a requirement. "
Nancy P was right, some people would vote for a bucket of warm piss to drink if it had a D after it.
For christs sake, stop babbling.
Trump was a celebrity birther, and that is why he was nominated in 2016. His only "experience" was in conning people out of their money.
You claimed to have an answer.
Mark offered Michelle. You reject that but refuse to offer your (claimed) suggestion for who, in a Biden v Trump race, could wrestle the presidency from those two.
Character, empathy, honesty, integrity, responsibility, patriotism, etc. do not seem to matter either.
“Character, empathy, honesty, integrity, responsibility, patriotism, etc. do not seem to matter either.”
Pick just one attribute that should define a presidential candidate…that the presumptive gop nominee is demonstrably devoid of any says less about him and more about the incessant partisanship plaguing all aspects of our political system.
I stated my position and gave a supporting argument. You made a claim that you have at least one person who could win the presidency from Biden v Trump in 2024 yet refuse to name the individual.
You insist you have provided this name but instead of simply stating same here you waste countless words in evasive tactics.
[deleted]
"Because you have no answer"
AWESOME!
Being a wife of a politician doesn't really count as experience.
Is this you supporting or rejecting Michelle as a candidate who could win and solve problems to your liking?
You claim to have an answer.
I claim there is none.
You deflect … poorly … and refuse to name this mystery person who will prove me wrong.
Will you at least concede that being an ivy league lawyer is a headstart as a qualification compared with nude model?
So the same people crying in 2016 that Trump should not be elected because he was not experienced are saying Michelle doesn't need experience because Trump won. Seems they must think Trump did a great job if experience is no longer an important qualification to be president.
Because Donald was such a great president and he had no experience it shows that experience is no longer a requirement?
No, along with Michelle Obama they support President Biden!
And, so do the Reagans, Bushes, Cheneys and the Romneys...
Well Trump is the root of all evil since time began so..............
That has nothing to do with what I posted and your segue leaves alot to be desired.
It relates as I said, "No". She is wrong about what she said...
Because what you said was all wrong and total bullshit...
Who is "She" and what did "she" say?
[removed]
Biden has a Iran policy?
I disagree, she was married to the POTUS for 8 years. She is a smart lady, I am sure she picked up a thing or two...
Of course, just thing what he/she/they would have learned from spousal pillow talk.
Amen to that!
Yes, Michelle is more qualified than Melania.
Why not engage those bad-mouthing Michelle?
[deleted]
One can only conclude you are much more comfortable with Trump returning than you are with Biden being re-elected.
I watched the recent Frontline documentary on Trumps involvement in the scheme to subvert the 2020 election results. It is a 2 1/2 hour comprehensive summary of the evidence against Trump in that regard. The evidence is crystal clear, Trump betrayed his oath of office and is a traitor.
We need to stop the national insanity of the pretense that Trump is an acceptable alternative for president. Every American should be a never Trumper, and then we would get a new Republican candidate.
John, we have other posters here to claim to be "non partisan" but seem to only attack Trump and give Biden the green light on most issues. [deleted]
Its simple, Biden is not remotely the pathetic excuse for a human being that Trump is. There is no reason for them to be treated the same.
That's your opinion only, and in no way a popular belief. Millions of people consider Biden to be corrupt, incompetent, unfit, and a traitor by his deliberate ongoing action of opening the southern border.
OK so you do believe Biden is a pathetic excuse for a human, yet you still defend him every step of the way.
You are also engaging in bothsideism, something you do not hesitate criticizing conservative posters for allegedly doing the same.
If neither of those two were running, who would you like to see step up to the plate...and keep in mind that pretty much everybody you mention will have negativeness that will be exploited by whoever they run against.
That is something you will have to get used to.
John
What degree of a pathetic excuse for a human being is Biden?
By the way, I agree with your assessment of Trump's character
Joe Biden is a decent human being.
You seem to be straying from the subject, JR.
Over the years, I’ve learned that in the Middle East there aren’t silver bullets. You can address issues as the occur and you can try to deter actions but permanent solutions are elusive and when we try, it’s likely that we make some things worse.
At the same time we must be strong, remain resilient, deter were we can and defend freedom of the seas. I wouldn’t take potential strikes in Iran off of the table but as of today, I think our response has been measured and appropriate.
The US should lessen our involvement in the middle east. We do not have a glorious history over there. Issues over there are a balancing act. If we launch a heavy attack on Iran proper there would be unseen but predictable ramifications including much of the rest of the Arab and Islamic world turning against us. Attacking Iran proper will not bring "peace".
We have about 900 in Syria and along their border with Jordan on an anti-ISIS mission, would you pull them out?
We have around 2,500 in Iraq and talks are underway to reduce that number.
We have several hundred trained in Jordan.
We have some naval support facilities and a large airbase in Qatar and a smaller one in Saudi.
Of course we currently have a large naval presence keeping international freedom of sea.
What missions do you want to end?
John
I think we have found something else to agree on
The U.S. needs to be either "all in" in the middle East or "all out"
We need to new "Rules of Engagement" - if our forces are attacked, wounded, killed we need to retaliate not with surgical precision but with vengeful resolve. Or we need to move our troops out of harm's way.
It is the basis which allows Israel to exist amongst the Arab world with no true allies. The Arab countries know (some factions occasionally forget) that if they attack Israel or Israelis that there will be retribution (swift and forceful).
Do you remember when the Israeli athletes were killed in Munich in 1972? The Israeli operation to track down and eliminate those responsible was named "Operation Wrath of God" and it was well named.
What pretense? We're talking about two of the shittiest of shitty politicians. There's no longer much of a vocal defense of Trump. People are supporting Trump because Biden is a shittier President than Trump was.
Democrats overplayed their hand. Democrats lied about everything. Democrats are shittier than Trump. And Biden is the shittiest of shitty Democrats. There's no longer any pretense in supporting Trump.
Yep, ran as a moderate and took a hard left turn on Jan 20, 2020.
Unconscionable….
You say the Democrats are the real racists, and use the civil war era as your "evidence". You have zero credibility on the relative value of our two political partys.
Exactly, but some are looking at what Biden has done.....WITH POLICY....through blinders
His potential traitorous activities with accepting money from our adversaries is a whole different thing.
It wasn't just the Civil War that shined a light on the racism of democrats.
It was also the treatment of blacks after the Civil War with the advent of the KKK, by democrats, and continued with Jim Crowe.
Democrats have a long history of racism......and it has nothing to do with the perceived "Southern Strategy" that the left keeps harping about.
Remember, it wasn't any other president than a D that said "we'll keep those n****** voting democrat for the next 200 years. "
Why yes, yes they are. And they don't know what the word "inclusion " means either.
[deleted]
Are you denying the Democratic Party was the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and segregation?
Biden denies the past of the Democratic Party. That's why Biden is one of the shittiest of shitty Democrats.
On any matter for that sake . . .
And you have presented no "credible" evidence either, but why let facts get in the way of a good story right?
John always provides credible evidence in his articles and in posts.
Credible evidence of what? That Democrats are not the anti-black party now?
There are people here who cling to the ridiculous idea that the Democratic Party of the 21st century is the same as the Democratic Party of the 19th century. Are you in that group ?
Some of these people wouldnt know evidence if it bit them in the ass.
Well, not the exact same thing. Most democrats of today don't wear their white hoods in the open.
You talk about partisanship, and you watch "Frontline?" Is "Frontline" the moderate commentator you seek?
You would call anyone who told the truth about Trump a leftist. That is who you are. The facts are the facts and the evidence is the evidence. Frontline didnt create this evidence, which largely comes out of the mouth of Trump advisors, administration members, and other Republicans. And everything in the Frontline documentary is supported by video or Trumps own twitter.
For example, they show the numerous times Trump has claimed, when he lost something, that he was cheated. They go all the way back to when he was on The Apprentice , and his show lost the best reality show Emmy to The Greatest Race.
Trump claimed that the emmy vote had been rigged against him and the fix was in.
On and on, he claims , very clearly, that Ted Cruz stole the 2016 Iowa primary.
He ALWAYS had a plan to try and steal the 2020 election (if he lost). He is not fit to hold office in this country, and far too many of our people are deluded about this.
What about the merits of the Trump candidacy?
Both Biden and Trump have served as president. All the people need do is choose which they prefer.
You essentially validate Trumps assertion that he could shoot someone in plain view of hundreds of people and not lose support because they like his policies.
What we have is endless propaganda from right wing media. You can be for any policy you like, that is fine. Half the country doesnt agree with your policies.
There will always be policy differences, that is why we have a national legislature that compromises.
Fitness for office is entirely a different matter. If Trump is elected back into office it will be an unprecedented disgrace to the United States of America.
And none could be more different than the Trump term and the Biden term.
That is all that should matter to voters.
There are no merits to the former 'president' or his supporters.
Now you are pivoting from the seed.
Again, just an opinion.
John
Once again you attack the person presenting an article rather than address the subject presented for discussion indicating that you are either unable to form a coherent opinion on the presented subject, have no thoughts on the issue or are simply too shallow to actually discuss an issue that actually has more than one right answer.
I didnt attack you, I described what you have done since you rejoined NT.
You are quite accurate John. Not an attack. Some like to play martyr and victim, like the former 'president'.
"stop with this charade that you are some sort of moderate"
This is from your post 2. You attacked him.
2.6 was responded to by member addressed so flag was dismissed by charger
Why, does that matter somehow?
I know.
I’ve never carried a card for either party, never will but my friends on the left are compulsive about labeling people, so you get a label. And if you don’t goosestep in exact step with their preferred narrative, you get what they consider to be a bad label.
It’s a very sophomoric process.
I agree with you 1000% here John. We're not fooled one bit by these alleged moderates and alleged conservatives. We see right through them.
They cant handle the truth.
Did you mistakenly add an extra 0?
You’re a shrewd one, Tess.
You still just cannot seem to accept that not everyone is not a leftist liberal democrat and not everyone shares your particular political worldview and marks the D box on a ballot no matter how much you expect them to be.
Isn't this Biden's policy of 'never kill a crisis'? It worked so well in the Senate.
There should be a Code of Conduct rule about hijacking articles with irrelevant bullshit, starting brush fire arguments, rather than letting the actual subject be discussed in an intelligent manner.
No not a CofC rule, but members should have the integrity and civility required to not be the excrement emitting end of an equine.
I think you've got something there.
It seems that your feelings, as a "moderate" are hurt.
There are many conservatives and right wingers on this site, and they have their say. You can fit yourself into that rank without distress.
There is no in between for you. How did this get to be a discussion about Robert?
You don't have to reply to me.
Somebody does before we lose another member.
Yeah, me.
He's not going anywhere, he said so.
Another alleged conservative/moderate that we see right through.
He fits right in with the other alleged conservatives/moderates.
Would be no loss whatsoever.
John would be.
doubt it.
Why does there have to be a label? Would you like being called a LWNJ?
I am sure it would be devastating for 1 or 2.
I dont believe in conspiracies. I dont deny obvious facts. I dont pretend that a traitor is acceptable to run our country. I am a left winger, sure, but a nut job? LOL.
And posted probably hundreds of seeds about the conspiracies....all with no proof.
I seriously doubt that you know enough about the so called "Russian hoax" to be able to debate it, so why would I bother?
An opinion piece from WaPo.
All opinion....no fact
I know more than you do. I'm 100% sure of that.
Except the ones the left make up about the right
And you also seem to buy into facts that are just made up
Yet you are voting for one
That is a matter of opinion.
The United States Senate reached the same conclusion.
Hilarious how some quote Reagan when he was suffering dementia (Reagan) through how much of his term and Nancy was actually running the show.
I'm 100% sure of that as well.
That comment speaks for itself.
It sure does.
I would say that Jill is running the show, covering for Joe, but she is nowhere near as intelligent as Nancy.
That's what the alleged conservatives and moderates here are spewing, just like who they're voting for, for 'president' spews constantly.
That would leave more than a few with nothing to say
All of thread 4 is locked to prevent it from gettig worse or becoming full of meta, by charger
It is amazing to to see the number of members that are too stupid, too busy or too inarticulate to actually discuss an issue but have plenty of time for ad hominem attacks and irrelevant chatter.
I don't agree with the points of view of many members, but I find no need to attack the members, or to derail their articles
Seems some members are afraid or too ignorant to discuss actual issues
Two things you can be pretty sure of here:
1 - when someone tells you they are smarter than you, they probably aren’t
2 - strangers attacking your character, usually have none.
Two things you can be pretty sure of here:
1 - when someone tells you they are smarter than you, they probably aren’t
2 - strangers attacking your character, usually have none.
Interesting observation, I will keep it in mind
Oh, the irony in both of those sentences......
[Deleted]
Interesting observation, I will keep it in mind“
Always consider sources ,
or not, difference, Be A lot
[deleted]
One need not be stupid or inarticulate to become bored with the constant and mountainous divisive political pseudo-war engulfing America and its citizens and denizens. Of course the scariest thing is that so many people have guns and ammo that they can use to enforce their opinions. Just think about what life would be like if politics didn't figure into it.
Buzz, you would be amazed at how many are oblivious to politix me off too, cause people have chosen ignorance over knowledge, kindergarten over college, oatmeal over portage, avoidance over outrage, and just because we have guns, doesn’t mean we don’t know how to have funz, for again i see a distorted vision by you on what it is like in the States, formerly United, and the Bullet, sometimes needs to be Bited, as left Biden our time till it is an attempted Trumping, and from there, possibly time to start bumping,off with their heads this time,
cause there will not be another January the 6th, no matter how much the Liar Lies
The Quart System will provide the metrics
Buzz
Do you really think "Politics" figures it out?
And as an aside, what do you think "it" is?
And perhaps you are right - not stupid or inarticulate, but rather unwilling to actually discuss an issue rationally because points that are contradictory to their unyielding positions on all issues might be brought to light and prove them wrong in their rantings and assertions.
The key to problem solving is rational discussion, acceptance and debate of competing views on a matter and acknowledgment when you are wrong and the person presenting the contrary view is right.
When people “debating”, have separate sources that they each consider “facts”, the fact is it becomes very difficult to come to an agreed mutual decision on much. When people choose to not even consider looking at substantial amounts of evidence and the accompanying context needed to make informed decisions on debated subjects,there is rarely going to be any agreement, but bury ones head in the sand has been a go to for those who know not too.
I admire your optimism.
The fact is we are genetically predisposed to keep playing the Game of Thrones.
Unti we "evolve" above this killing field we are doomed to repete it over and over.
As someone that has made a living problem solving and getting training from Chrysler, Ford and Pratt Whitney let me add my two cents. The biggest mistake in problem solving is not defining the problem correctly. Believe it or not Engineers have the most issue with that because they want to skip right to the solution. The training was pretty hilarious since it was set up so initial definition and solutions suggested were set up so they would be all wrong. The second biggest mistake is deciding on a root cause without going through the problem solving process( 7 or 8 defined steps depending on company). At that point the biggest barrier to solving a correctly defined root cause is getting consensus on an actual solution without anyone being deemed right or wrong. If everyone does not agree with the solution (even if it is not exactly what they want) the solution will never be implemented correctly. It is not a matter of being right or wrong but what is acceptable compromise.
Thanks for letting me rant
RDtC
Not a rant at all - rational compromise what a novel and noble concept
As RiO has pointed out, there is a lot of meta hash being thrown around. This is like pulling Thanksgiving leftovers out of the freezer three months later. Runny taters and lumpy gravy. So, let's get back to discussing the fresh hash on the plate.
Biden's Iran policy is to continue Obama's policy of normalizing relations with Iran. That has required Biden to be completely deaf, dumb, and blind to Iran's ties with Russia, Iran's meddling in the oil markets, and Iran's sponsoring terror in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza.
So, Biden's policy is to make nice with Iran, no matter what. Biden is trying to turn back the clock and redo the consequences of Carter's policies toward Iran. That's in keeping with Biden's attempts to redo the Cold War. Biden wants to be a President of the 1970s but Biden is turning into George McGovern.
(Apparently Biden believes providing safe haven to the Shah was a mistake that drives grievances in the Middle East. IMO that's a wrong conclusion but that's the best explanation for Obama's and Biden's dealings with Iran. Obama's and Biden's approach seems to discount Iran's desire to replace Saudi Arabia as the diplomatic and political power in the Middle East.)
The unbiased liberal press characterizes Biden's approach with Iran as avoiding expanding the conflict in the Middle East. Biden didn't seem to have the same worries in Eastern Europe. Biden has been quite provocative with the Ukrainian brush war. What we're being told by the press doesn't really pass the smell test. Continuing Obama's policy shift to normalize relations with Iran has only created an opportunity that Iran will try to exploit.
Nerm
Excellent points
Thanks for sharing your persepective
Notice that I left out the war between Iran and Iraq? That was Reagan's pooch. I had hoped the omission would entice someone else to chime in.
Thanks back at ya.
I dunno about the iraq-iran war being Reagan's pooch, Iran-Contra was his yes, the war wasn't. It was harder for him to make supplies available to Iran after the hostage mess of the Carter years.instigated by the then Iranian government at the time over the Shah.
What people forget is the only reason the Shah was in the us for was medical treatment for cancer, he had residences in the Bahamas,morroco, Mexico and Egypt, where he eventually died of cancer. He never had a permanent residence in the us.
If I remember right it was Iraq that was the actual aggressor there, thinking Iran lost its supply line to the us and replacement arms,not sure but I think Iran is the only nation still flying the F 14 tomcat,which is why the us has destroyed all the others in existance.
And if I remember right Iran-Contra,had to do with f 14 parts in part.
Of course Iran being shia ran and Iraq being sunni ran at the time, they were going to Duke it out anyway for control of the region.muslim sect on Muslim sect, to each the other is a blasphemer. Of course what level each has it notched up to plays a big part as well.
AND it was during that war Iraq showed the world they would use WMD in any conflict they fought in .
Yes, poison gas is considered a WMD, ask the republican guard or some of the Kurds in northern Iraq.