# Iran Nuclear Deal Reached At Geneva Talks



## J.E.D

Iran Nuclear Deal Reached At Geneva Talks 

The French and Iranian foreign ministers said early Sunday that a deal between six world powers and Iran has been struck that calls on Tehran to limit its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, "Yes, we have a deal," as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days.

Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said "Yes" and gave a thumbs up sign.

The goal had been to hammer out an agreement to freeze Iran's nuclear program for six months, while offering the Iranians limited relief from crippling economic sanctions. If the interim deal holds, the parties will negotiate final-stage agreements to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.


----------



## asaratis

J.E.D said:


> Iran Nuclear Deal Reached At Geneva Talks
> 
> The French and Iranian foreign ministers said early Sunday that a deal between six world powers and Iran has been struck that calls on Tehran to limit its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief.
> 
> Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, "Yes, we have a deal," as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days.
> 
> Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said "Yes" and gave a thumbs up sign.
> 
> The goal had been to hammer out an agreement to freeze Iran's nuclear program for six months, while offering the Iranians limited relief from crippling economic sanctions. If the interim deal holds, the parties will negotiate final-stage agreements to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.


Certainly we should all trust the Iranians.


----------



## francoHFW

Good. Sorry, hater dupes- no dumbass war for you...


----------



## Darkwind

J.E.D said:


> Iran Nuclear Deal Reached At Geneva Talks
> 
> The French and Iranian foreign ministers said early Sunday that a deal between six world powers and Iran has been struck that calls on Tehran to limit its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief.
> 
> Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, "Yes, we have a deal," as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days.
> 
> Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said "Yes" and gave a thumbs up sign.
> 
> The goal had been to hammer out an agreement to freeze Iran's nuclear program for six months, while offering the Iranians limited relief from crippling economic sanctions. If the interim deal holds, the parties will negotiate final-stage agreements to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.


So, they gave them sanction relief before a single facility was dismantled.

And they'll be back at this in six months?


This means that Iran is within six months of having enough weapons grade material to produce a bomb.

That is not good news at all.


----------



## Capstone

This, _despite_ an eleventh-hour intervention attempt by Kerry.


----------



## Capstone

Those god-durned Iranians just keep refusing to sit for the kind of portrait western warmongers want so badly to paint.

Good for them.


----------



## FA_Q2

Capstone said:


> Those god-durned Iranians just keep refusing to sit for the kind of portrait western warmongers want so badly to paint.
> 
> Good for them.



I would not be so sure.  Iran is not known for its honesty in nuclear negotiations.  I dont think for one second that this is going to work.  I could be wrong, I HOPE I am wrong but alas I doubt it.


----------



## The Rabbi

The Iranians are known for their dishonesty on this issue.  They have given up nothing and gotten everything in exchange.  They have played Obama in the wake of his grossly incompetent performance on Syria.  Only dedicated Israel-haters see any victory here. 
The only good thing about the Obama Administation is that it is realigning the Middle East.  Now Saudi Arabia and Israel have identical interests.


----------



## Edgetho

At least this gang of dimocrap idiots didn't GIVE them the means to produce Fissionable Material like the rapist's regime did.

Anybody that thinks the Iranians won't try to hit Israel as soon as they develop a nuke and can put it on a delivery system is brain dead.  Which includes 99% of dimocraps.

The Saudis are pissed, so are the Kuwaitis, the Iraqis will now go 100% into the Iranian camp, the Israelis are pissed, and they might get scared and try to hit the Iranian production facilities buried deep underground.

At which they will fail.  Oh, they'll hit them, but they won't destroy them.

Then Iran gets pissed and launches an all out War against Israel.

Israel can _probably_ handle them but not until Iran closes down the most important Oil transportation waterway on Earth and sends gasoline to $7 a gallon here.  IF.... You can can even get it.

Of course, with the Stuttering Clusterfuck closing down most of the permitting process on Federal Lands, with the Gulf of Mexico Oil Production way down.......

These people aren't stupid in one way, they're stupid and incompetent in every imaginable way.

But.....  So are the people who voted for him.


----------



## TemplarKormac

The Iranians will put on quite the show, but will not cooperate smoothly. This deal has no punch. If they really wanted to get their attention, the mere threat of military action would do the trick. When Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, the Iranians feared America would come after them next, so they halted their nuclear program.


----------



## TemplarKormac

In the meantime, I predict liberals here will try to somehow use this as a cover for the failure of Obamacare.


----------



## BullKurtz

TemplarKormac said:


> In the meantime, I predict liberals here will try to somehow use this as a cover for the failure of Obamacare.



Barry was taught to hate "the jews" in Revrund Wright's church so this comes as no surprise.....he gets his miserable lying ass off on another subject and his media puppets play along.  The Swifties made it clear who John Kerry is....a worthless lying bum, same as Barry.  So he sells out Israel and but keeps the jewish bankers in his pocket by reminding them Holder can indict them in a heartbeat, and fakes out the GOP on Iran.  It should also be remembered Iran sent material aid and militia into Iraq to kill GIs....nothing has changed with the mullahs or their new salesman PM.  The IDF is now left isolated and alone....that's dangerous for the entire ME.....they will act to defend themselves and they're about to.....Maybe this is the plan the WH will use to divert the American public completely from the rest of it's criminal untertakings.


----------



## TemplarKormac

francoHFW said:


> Good. Sorry, hater dupes- no dumbass war for you...



What? Who wanted a war? Sorry, no dumbass argument from you.


----------



## tyroneweaver

francoHFW said:


> Good. Sorry, hater dupes- no dumbass war for you...



and you say this iranians using iraqi air space for their war in syria...sheeesh


----------



## blackhawk

As I understand it this is a temporary six month deal and Iran still reserves the right to go back to enriching uranium something the west very much wants them to give up maybe they can work that part out in the next six months but I would not hold my breath.


----------



## The Rabbi

blackhawk said:


> As I understand it this is a temporary six month deal and Iran still reserves the right to go back to enriching uranium something the west very much wants them to give up maybe they can work that part out in the next six months but I would not hold my breath.



Why would they? It will be nearly impossible to reimpose sanctions.  The Iranians will agree to talk more, nothing more than that.


----------



## velvtacheeze

The Rabbi said:


> The Iranians are known for their dishonesty on this issue.  They have given up nothing and gotten everything in exchange.  They have played Obama in the wake of his grossly incompetent performance on Syria.  Only dedicated Israel-haters see any victory here.
> The only good thing about the Obama Administation is that it is realigning the Middle East.  Now Saudi Arabia and Israel have identical interests.



The Butthurt is strong with this one.


----------



## velvtacheeze

asaratis said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran Nuclear Deal Reached At Geneva Talks
> 
> The French and Iranian foreign ministers said early Sunday that a deal between six world powers and Iran has been struck that calls on Tehran to limit its nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief.
> 
> Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said, "Yes, we have a deal," as he walked past reporters crowding the hotel lobby where marathon negotiations had taken place over the past five days.
> 
> Asked if there was a deal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said "Yes" and gave a thumbs up sign.
> 
> The goal had been to hammer out an agreement to freeze Iran's nuclear program for six months, while offering the Iranians limited relief from crippling economic sanctions. If the interim deal holds, the parties will negotiate final-stage agreements to ensure Iran does not build nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly we should all trust the Iranians.
Click to expand...


Sorry, no war for you. Boo hoo.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Iran , if it gets a nuke, won't just pop off and use it against Israel.  Only lunatics say this.

Iran hasn't started a war in thousands of years.  

Israel and the US , however, start them all the time.

Iran clearly feels the need to better protect itself in case a warmonger GOPer gets in the White House again. 

Our aggression towards them is the problem, and its the root cause of their nuclear ambitions.


----------



## mudwhistle

I figured that Obama would come up with something to remove the Obamacare headlines and this appears to be his latest attempt.

*Obama claims to have a deal with Iran to halt their nuke production.*

John Kerry says this is just the beginning. Where have we heard this before.

Unfortunately nothing Obama does can be trusted. In his desperation to change the subject and it appears that contrary to the objections of every country in the region, Obama has made this conditional agreement without taking anyone else's advice. Kerry says that this only locks their program where it is today. He claims we will be allowed to monitor everything. 

Bullshit. 

This is yet another political move that means jack shit. They are of the belief that something is better than nothing. 

Well, this is all about nothing. 







The Obama Administration, eagerly seeking a deal on Iran&#8217;s nuclear program, is now signaling that it will ease the sanctions that finally forced Tehran to the negotiating table.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the Obama Administration is considering the easing of some sanctions to further advance negotiations with Tehran.

In fact, the White House has already chosen to lighten Iran&#8217;s sanctions burden by slowing the implementation of existing sanctions and delaying congressional legislation that would impose new sanctions. Eli Lake and Josh Rogin reported in today&#8217;s Daily Beast that the Administration began softening sanctions* after the June election of Hassan Rouhani* by slowing the pace of designating Iranian front companies, individuals, ships, and aircraft as sanctions violators.

The Administration has also lobbied Congress to postpone any new sanctions to avoid disrupting the current round of negotiations with Iran. But this is a gross misreading of the situation. The prospect of new sanctions would enhance American bargaining leverage with Iran and increase the chances that an acceptable agreement can be negotiated with the recalcitrant regime in Tehran.​
Iran Gains Sanctions Relief from the Obama Administration | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation


----------



## Darkwind

blackhawk said:


> As I understand it this is a temporary six month deal and Iran still reserves the right to go back to enriching uranium something the west very much wants them to give up maybe they can work that part out in the next six months but I would not hold my breath.


The Iranians are playing the Democrats as they always play them.

Oh, we'll stop doing that, but won't you stop hurting us first?

Six months later......it comes to light that they never stopped, and never intended to stop.

They are paying for a little more time because they need just a little more time.....

Ben Netanyahu  has it right.  The American government is too stupid to see it.


----------



## Darkwind

velvtacheeze said:


> Iran , if it gets a nuke, won't just pop off and use it against Israel.  Only lunatics say this.
> 
> Iran hasn't started a war in thousands of years.
> 
> Israel and the US , however, start them all the time.
> 
> Iran clearly feels the need to better protect itself in case a warmonger GOPer gets in the White House again.
> 
> Our aggression towards them is the problem, and its the root cause of their nuclear ambitions.


A truly blind imbecile.

You're being played and your not even bright enough to know it.


----------



## Mr. H.

Untrustworthy Obama teams up with untrustworthy Iran.

Maybe he thinks two wrongs make a right?


----------



## velvtacheeze

Darkwind said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran , if it gets a nuke, won't just pop off and use it against Israel.  Only lunatics say this.
> 
> Iran hasn't started a war in thousands of years.
> 
> Israel and the US , however, start them all the time.
> 
> Iran clearly feels the need to better protect itself in case a warmonger GOPer gets in the White House again.
> 
> Our aggression towards them is the problem, and its the root cause of their nuclear ambitions.
> 
> 
> 
> A truly blind imbecile.
> 
> You're being played and your not even bright enough to know it.
Click to expand...


America's conservatives were wrong about the Iraq War, and so their preferred policies towards Iran will be dismissed.  The American people got played by the GOP in Iraq, and will not get played again.


----------



## mudwhistle

> Easing the economic pressure on Iran during the negotiations would also be unwise because it gives Tehran an incentive to string out the talks or reach an interim deal that preserves its nuclear options while impeding further U.S. and Western sanctions.
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had this in mind when he denounced the emerging details of a possible interim agreement with Iran today as a &#8220;very bad deal&#8221; that Israel &#8220;utterly rejects.&#8221;
> 
> Saudi Arabia has also expressed alarm over the Obama Administration&#8217;s soft policy toward Iran. It is reportedly hedging its bets by making arrangements to acquire a nuclear weapon from Pakistan, whose nuclear program is heavily financed.
> 
> The mounting signs that the Obama Administration will settle for a bad nuclear deal with Iran not only increases the likelihood that Saudi Arabia and other countries will react with a cascade of nuclear proliferation; it also increases the chances of a war between Israel and Iran.



This is basically a relaxing of sanctions on our part and a promise by Iran to come to the table at a later date to negotiate. This is no real deal. Especially since the Iranians know Obama is desperate for one.

Saudi Arabia is now arming themselves with nukes because they don't trust Iran and they don't trust the Obama Administration.

Great Job Barry.


----------



## The Rabbi

velvtacheeze said:


> Iran , if it gets a nuke, won't just pop off and use it against Israel.  Only lunatics say this.
> 
> Iran hasn't started a war in thousands of years.
> 
> Israel and the US , however, start them all the time.
> 
> Iran clearly feels the need to better protect itself in case a warmonger GOPer gets in the White House again.
> 
> Our aggression towards them is the problem, and its the root cause of their nuclear ambitions.



Actually the entire Iranian government has said they will wipe Israel off the map, many times over many years.
Only idiots like you don't believe them.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Darkwind said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it this is a temporary six month deal and Iran still reserves the right to go back to enriching uranium something the west very much wants them to give up maybe they can work that part out in the next six months but I would not hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranians are playing the Democrats as they always play them.
> 
> Oh, we'll stop doing that, but won't you stop hurting us first?
> 
> Six months later......it comes to light that they never stopped, and never intended to stop.
> 
> They are paying for a little more time because they need just a little more time.....
> 
> Ben Netanyahu  has it right.  The American government is too stupid to see it.
Click to expand...


Face it, not enough Americans voted for a more aggressive policy towards Iran.  Most Americans just don't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon or not.  Had the Iraq War not been fought, then maybe the voters would be willing to fight a war, but the Iraq War was a clusterf___, and now Americans just aren't ready to make the mistake of attacking a country over WMD. 

And if Israel attacks Iran, then all they will have done is to give Iran a valid excuse to nuke Israel once they get a nuke.  

You lose. Go be ButtHurt over something else.


----------



## mudwhistle

If you like your nukes, you can keep your nukes......no really, I'm not bullshitting......


----------



## velvtacheeze

The Rabbi said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran , if it gets a nuke, won't just pop off and use it against Israel.  Only lunatics say this.
> 
> Iran hasn't started a war in thousands of years.
> 
> Israel and the US , however, start them all the time.
> 
> Iran clearly feels the need to better protect itself in case a warmonger GOPer gets in the White House again.
> 
> Our aggression towards them is the problem, and its the root cause of their nuclear ambitions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the entire Iranian government has said they will wipe Israel off the map, many times over many years.
> Only idiots like you don't believe them.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that they mean they'll attack Israel with a nuclear weapon once they get one.  I think such a belief is without evidence. 

But if Israel attacks Iran, then Iran will have justification for using a nuke on Israel if they do ever make a nuke.  So the Israelis better stand down, and stop the blustering and saber rattling.  They're only making things worse.


----------



## Darkwind

velvtacheeze said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran , if it gets a nuke, won't just pop off and use it against Israel.  Only lunatics say this.
> 
> Iran hasn't started a war in thousands of years.
> 
> Israel and the US , however, start them all the time.
> 
> Iran clearly feels the need to better protect itself in case a warmonger GOPer gets in the White House again.
> 
> Our aggression towards them is the problem, and its the root cause of their nuclear ambitions.
> 
> 
> 
> A truly blind imbecile.
> 
> You're being played and your not even bright enough to know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America's conservatives were wrong about the Iraq War, and so their preferred policies towards Iran will be dismissed.  The American people got played by the GOP in Iraq, and will not get played again.
Click to expand...

NO, we were not.  You've just had to lie to change the narrative.  One in which the Democrats AND the Republicans had to go to war.  They both voted for it.

However, none of that matters because Iran was finally starting to feel the pressure and could have been stopped without a single bullet being fired.

Because of the Democrat idiocy, we may now have to stop a nuclear Iran.

Congratulations.


----------



## Darkwind

velvtacheeze said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it this is a temporary six month deal and Iran still reserves the right to go back to enriching uranium something the west very much wants them to give up maybe they can work that part out in the next six months but I would not hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranians are playing the Democrats as they always play them.
> 
> Oh, we'll stop doing that, but won't you stop hurting us first?
> 
> Six months later......it comes to light that they never stopped, and never intended to stop.
> 
> They are paying for a little more time because they need just a little more time.....
> 
> Ben Netanyahu  has it right.  The American government is too stupid to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face it, not enough Americans voted for a more aggressive policy towards Iran.  Most Americans just don't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon or not.  Had the Iraq War not been fought, then maybe the voters would be willing to fight a war, but the Iraq War was a clusterf___, and now Americans just aren't ready to make the mistake of attacking a country over WMD.
> 
> And if Israel attacks Iran, then all they will have done is to give Iran a valid excuse to nuke Israel once they get a nuke.
> 
> You lose. Go be ButtHurt over something else.
Click to expand...

If most Americans were told the truth, your statement wouldn't be any more true than it is now.

These are your beliefs.  Not America's.


----------



## J.E.D

TemplarKormac said:


> In the meantime, I predict liberals here will try to somehow use this as a cover for the failure of Obamacare.



I see you wasted no time in poo-pooing it and trying to turn it into yet another Obamacare criticism. Useless troll that you are.


----------



## AceRothstein

Have people never seen a map of US bases surrounding Iran? And then they wonder why Iran wants nukes.


----------



## J.E.D

Conservatives are such patriots! If a Republican admin had reached a deal with Iran, they would be jerking each other off in celebration for all the world to see.


----------



## mudwhistle

J.E.D said:


> Conservatives are such patriots! If a Republican admin had reached a deal with Iran, they would be jerking each other off in celebration for all the world to see.



I think the media would be all over this and they would point out the flaws in this agreement. 

By Monday morning it would have been totally trashed.


----------



## J.E.D

Try as you might, conservative has-beens, you can't change the fact that this is a HISTORIC achievement. Health care reform, ending the war in Iraq, killing Bin Laden, and now a deal with Iran - all of which Bush and his fellow Republicans couldn't - or wouldn't - do


----------



## mudwhistle

J.E.D said:


> Try as you might, conservative has-beens, you can't change the fact that this is a HISTORIC achievement. Health care reform, ending the war in Iraq, killing Bin Laden, and now a deal with Iran - all of which Bush and his fellow Republicans couldn't - or wouldn't - do



You'll settle for lump of shit as long as it came out of Obama's ass.....


----------



## J.E.D

You call anything Obama does a 'lump of shit' no matter how much of an achievement it is.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Darkwind said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranians are playing the Democrats as they always play them.
> 
> Oh, we'll stop doing that, but won't you stop hurting us first?
> 
> Six months later......it comes to light that they never stopped, and never intended to stop.
> 
> They are paying for a little more time because they need just a little more time.....
> 
> Ben Netanyahu  has it right.  The American government is too stupid to see it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Face it, not enough Americans voted for a more aggressive policy towards Iran.  Most Americans just don't care if Iran has a nuclear weapon or not.  Had the Iraq War not been fought, then maybe the voters would be willing to fight a war, but the Iraq War was a clusterf___, and now Americans just aren't ready to make the mistake of attacking a country over WMD.
> 
> And if Israel attacks Iran, then all they will have done is to give Iran a valid excuse to nuke Israel once they get a nuke.
> 
> You lose. Go be ButtHurt over something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If most Americans were told the truth, your statement wouldn't be any more true than it is now.
> 
> These are your beliefs.  Not America's.
Click to expand...


They were not told the truth about the lack of WMD in Iraq. The American people were lied to by the GOP White House.  

And now the American people just don't believe that Iran is a threat either. 

Too bad for you. No war for you. Go be butthurt over something else now.


----------



## mudwhistle

bump


----------



## blackhawk

J.E.D said:


> You call anything Obama does a 'lump of shit' no matter how much of an achievement it is.



And calling anything Obama does a success or great achievement is better how? Something positive may come from this or it might not while it's fair for Obama supporters to call this a positive step it's equally fair for other's to be skeptical of it leading anywhere simple truth is it's far to early to know.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Darkwind said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> A truly blind imbecile.
> 
> You're being played and your not even bright enough to know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America's conservatives were wrong about the Iraq War, and so their preferred policies towards Iran will be dismissed.  The American people got played by the GOP in Iraq, and will not get played again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> NO, we were not.  You've just had to lie to change the narrative.  One in which the Democrats AND the Republicans had to go to war.  They both voted for it.
> 
> However, none of that matters because Iran was finally starting to feel the pressure and could have been stopped without a single bullet being fired.
> 
> Because of the Democrat idiocy, we may now have to stop a nuclear Iran.
> 
> Congratulations.
Click to expand...


The Democrats who made the mistake of supporting the failed and flopped Iraq War changed their minds about it once the obviousness of its failure became clear.  The GOP took full ownership of the Iraq War in the 2004 election.  It's failure is on the GOP.  The GOP's owns the failed Iraq War fully. 

The American people just don't support the GOP's bullying foreign policy anymore, and it's because of the GOP's flopped Iraq War.  It's on conservatives to accept their mistakes and get past the fact that Americans don't want a war.


----------



## J.E.D

John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction

It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.

But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:

Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care


----------



## J.E.D

what a scumbag


----------



## Stephanie

well cry us riva

We don't all fall and grovel at Obama's feet


----------



## Stephanie

yeah, like North Korea we'll see how long this last

gawd what a joke


----------



## NYcarbineer

J.E.D said:


> John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction
> 
> It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.
> 
> But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:
> 
> Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care



The other day when someone was calling Reid's action in the Senate an attempt to divert attention from Obamacare, I almost posted that from now on, everything Democrats do is going to be labeled a distraction from Obamacare by the nuts on the right.  lol, now I wish I had.


----------



## Stephanie

you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country




Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake

BY:  Washington Free Beacon Staff
November 24, 2013 9:38 am

[ame=http://youtu.be/7Xk2BEpHL70]Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube[/ame]

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal, &#8220; a historic mistake, it&#8217;s not made the world a safer place.&#8221;

from
Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon


----------



## LordBrownTrout

I don't see how it could be a distraction since very few are paying any attention to foreign policy screw ups.


----------



## whitehall

There is no deal. Even the left leaning A.P. characterizes it as "slowing Iran's nuclear development". What kind of a deal is it when Iran keeps the nuclear pot boiling while the gullible Hussein administration believes  the propaganda?


----------



## Dot Com

Hyperbole was never a characteristic that many eXtreme Republicans lacked


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

What Iran does is not our business.  Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.


----------



## velvtacheeze

The GOP only has itself to blame if they don't like the agreement with Iran.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> What Iran does is not our business.  Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.



That is true.


----------



## Katzndogz

Isn't it a given that this is supposed to replace the obamacare failure in the headlines?


----------



## The Rabbi

J.E.D said:


> Conservatives are such patriots! If a Republican admin had reached a deal with Iran, they would be jerking each other off in celebration for all the world to see.



If the GOP had reached a deal with Iran it would have been a deal that enhances our position,not one that surrenders to the Mullahs.
You crow about a deal without knowing what's in it.  Why do you think the Iranians are celebrating?  Is it because the US got the best of them?


----------



## Stephanie

Katzndogz said:


> Isn't it a given that this is supposed to replace the obamacare failure in the headlines?



that's all it is

Michelle Malkin calls, Kabuki theater..

and Democrats plays their base like a fiddle


----------



## The Rabbi

Katzndogz said:


> Isn't it a given that this is supposed to replace the obamacare failure in the headlines?



Now we can have both a foreign and domestic failure.  Like he's never had a foreign policy failure before.


----------



## velvtacheeze

The Rabbi said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are such patriots! If a Republican admin had reached a deal with Iran, they would be jerking each other off in celebration for all the world to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the GOP had reached a deal with Iran it would have been a deal that enhances our position,not one that surrenders to the Mullahs.
> You crow about a deal without knowing what's in it.  Why do you think the Iranians are celebrating?  Is it because the US got the best of them?
Click to expand...


The GOP doesn't want a deal, and never would have negotiated in good faith. It's one reason why the voters have kept the GOP out of the White House two elections in a row.  The GOP is just not trustworthy on foreign policy issues.


----------



## Katzndogz

whitehall said:


> There is no deal. Even the left leaning A.P. characterizes it as "slowing Iran's nuclear development". What kind of a deal is it when Iran keeps the nuclear pot boiling while the gullible Hussein administration believes  the propaganda?



It's already falling apart.  Iran says the agreement gives then the right to continue enriching uranium.  Kerry says it doesn't.

Is it too early to compare Kerry to Chamberlain?


----------



## Stephanie

The Rabbi said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are such patriots! If a Republican admin had reached a deal with Iran, they would be jerking each other off in celebration for all the world to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the GOP had reached a deal with Iran it would have been a deal that enhances our position,not one that surrenders to the Mullahs.
> You crow about a deal without knowing what's in it.  Why do you think the Iranians are celebrating?  Is it because the US got the best of them?
Click to expand...


he probably doesn't know or care

he's a Obama sheep


----------



## usmcstinger

J.E.D said:


> John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction
> 
> It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.
> 
> But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:
> 
> Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care



Another terrible forein policy move. Iran can not be trusted! Can our Government be trusted.
This certainly inhibits the Iranian people's quest for freedom.

The US has thrown Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Arab Gulf Coast States under the bus.

*Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in the Senate.*
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/21/us-iran-nuclear-sanctions-reid-idUSBRE9AK0WN20131121

Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) expressed worries as well.
"We are very concerned as to whether Iran will live up to even these commitments, and this is the first step," said Cardin, who also sits on the Foreign Relations Committee.

*Cardin said the temporary deal should not be allowed to stand permanently.*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/24/iran-deal-reactions_n_4333529.html
*Looks like the Democratic Senators are going to be a big problem.*


----------



## The Rabbi

Stephanie said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are such patriots! If a Republican admin had reached a deal with Iran, they would be jerking each other off in celebration for all the world to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the GOP had reached a deal with Iran it would have been a deal that enhances our position,not one that surrenders to the Mullahs.
> You crow about a deal without knowing what's in it.  Why do you think the Iranians are celebrating?  Is it because the US got the best of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he probably doesn't know or care
> 
> he's a Obama sheep
Click to expand...


He knows:
1) Obama negotiated it.
2) THe GOP and Israel oppose it.
Ergo it must be a fantastic deal and anyone who opposes it is a racist.


----------



## BullKurtz

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGAdrQ2RpdM]A Montage of Obama's "If You Like Your Plan Keep It" Lies - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Stephanie

BullKurtzUSMC said:


> A Montage of Obama's "If You Like Your Plan Keep It" Lies - YouTube



Yep, we aren't going to let them drop this from people minds

all the way up to elections...here we come


----------



## rightwinger

So....

The US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia think it is a good deal

Republicans say it sucks

Guess who is on the wrong side of history again?


----------



## The Rabbi

usmcstinger said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction
> 
> It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.
> 
> But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:
> 
> Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another terrible forein policy move. Iran can not be trusted! This certainly inhibits the Iranian people's quest for freedom.
> 
> The US has thrown Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast States under the bus.
Click to expand...


The Obama Administration is good at that sort of thing.  He threw over Poland and the Czech Republic to the Russians in return for a "restart" that led to Putin making Obama his bitch on Syria.


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> So....
> 
> The US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia think it is a good deal
> 
> Republicans say it sucks
> 
> Guess who is on the wrong side of history again?



didn't a few of those countries think going to Iraq with Bush was good thing too?

hummmm and what did your dear ones say about that?


----------



## R.C. Christian

You "hater dupes" are pretty stupid. There is no way in hell that Iran get's saved. 1 year from now, or even ten, Iran is going to get bombed. Israel and the terrorist in Saudi will push it along if they have to because Iran is too important a prize.


----------



## Katzndogz

Israel has never started a war, it has finished several.


----------



## The Rabbi

rightwinger said:


> So....
> 
> The US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia think it is a good deal
> 
> Republicans say it sucks
> 
> Guess who is on the wrong side of history again?



WHo says they think it is a good deal?


----------



## Katzndogz

R.C. Christian said:


> You "hater dupes" are pretty stupid. There is no way in hell that Iran get's saved. 1 year from now, or even ten, Iran is going to get bombed. Israel and the terrorist in Saudi will push it along if they have to because Iran is too important a prize.



Even muslims won't tolerate Twelvers.  The Shah outlawed the cult giving believers the death penalty.  The mullahs reinstated belief in the Twelfth Imam notice that the "agreement" cements in place all that mullah power.

If obama was interested in ending Iran as a danger, he would have supported the Green Revolution.


----------



## BullKurtz

The Rabbi said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it this is a temporary six month deal and Iran still reserves the right to go back to enriching uranium something the west very much wants them to give up maybe they can work that part out in the next six months but I would not hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they? It will be nearly impossible to reimpose sanctions.  The Iranians will agree to talk more, nothing more than that.
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> So....
> 
> The US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia think it is a good deal
> 
> Republicans say it sucks
> 
> Guess who is on the wrong side of history again?



Germany certainly has a pristine record of caring about the Jews....so does Russia who Israel spied on for us throughout the Cold War.  France too....and of course Barry Hussein Soetoro who once stomped out a meeting at the WH leaving Netanyahu sitting at the conference table with his mouth hanging open.....why Britain agreed to this is all that puzzles me.


----------



## Dot Com

He might as well have just directly armed them  Oh wait  A Republican President already did that in the mid- 1980's


----------



## rightwinger

Stephanie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> The US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia think it is a good deal
> 
> Republicans say it sucks
> 
> Guess who is on the wrong side of history again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> didn't a few of those countries think going to Iraq with Bush was good thing too?
> 
> hummmm and what did your dear ones say about that?
Click to expand...


Britain?


----------



## The Rabbi

Dot Com said:


> He might as well have just directly armed them  Oh wait  A Republican President already did that in the mid- 1980's



With nuclear weapons, right?  Oh wait a minute.
And today is exactly like 30 years ago.


----------



## rightwinger

BullKurtzUSMC said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I understand it this is a temporary six month deal and Iran still reserves the right to go back to enriching uranium something the west very much wants them to give up maybe they can work that part out in the next six months but I would not hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they? It will be nearly impossible to reimpose sanctions.  The Iranians will agree to talk more, nothing more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> The US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia think it is a good deal
> 
> Republicans say it sucks
> 
> Guess who is on the wrong side of history again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germany certainly has a pristine record of caring about the Jews....so does Russia who Israel spied on for us throughout the Cold War.  France too....and of course Barry Hussein Soetoro who once stomped out a meeting at the WH leaving Netanyahu sitting at the conference table with his mouth hanging open.....why Britain agreed to this is all that puzzles me.
Click to expand...


Wow....60 year old history

Want to talk about the Spanish inquisition?


----------



## Trajan

I am not sure what to make of this, what deal exactly? it appears iran and the US are thinking they got 2 different things-


Iran nuclear deal: One agreement, wildly different reactions
By Holly Yan and Josh Levs, CNN
updated 12:05 PM EST, Sun November 24, 2013



snip-

In one corner, ardent supporters, like the White House, touted it as a resolution in which they didn't waver from their core beliefs. Iranian officials boasted the same.

President Barack Obama said the deal is a significant step forward.

"For the first time in nearly a decade, we have halted the progress of the Iranian nuclear program, and key parts of the program will be rolled back," Obama said late Saturday night.

"Iran has committed to halting certain levels of enrichment and neutralizing part of its stockpiles. ... And new inspections will provide extensive access to Iran's nuclear facilities and allow the international community to verify whether Iran is keeping its commitments."

He said those limitations are among several that will cut off Iran's most likely paths to a nuclear bomb.

meanwhile-

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also lauded the deal struck between the P5+1 countries and Iran. But that's pretty much where the similarities stop.

Contrary to what Obama said, Rouhani said "all sanctions will be lifted" as part of the deal.

That's not the only difference in wording. Earlier, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the written deal does not say that Iran can enrich uranium.

Rouhani, however, said the outcome means world powers have "recognized Iran's nuclear rights," including the right to enrich uranium.

"This right has been explicitly stipulated by this agreement, stressing that Iran will go on with enrichment," he said. "Enrichment will proceed similar to in the past."

According to the White House, Iran has agreed to stop enriching uranium above 5% purity. That's enough to produce electricity, but not enough to reach the level required to make a nuclear bomb.



more at 
Iran nuclear deal: One agreement, wildly different reactions - CNN.com


if you recall Rouhani said enrichment was a red line a few weeks ago, that they would not allow crossed..



Iran's Rouhani says uranium enrichment 'red line'
Associated Press
By NASSER KARIMI November 10, 2013 6:08 AM


n an address to parliament, Rouhani said uranium enrichment is a "red line" that cannot be crossed.

"Nuclear rights in the international framework, including uranium enrichment, on its soil" are not negotiable, Rouhani was quoted as saying by the semiofficial ISNA news agency. "For us red lines are not crossable."

more at-
Iran's Rouhani says uranium enrichment 'red line'


so, which is it....


----------



## velvtacheeze

The Rabbi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the GOP had reached a deal with Iran it would have been a deal that enhances our position,not one that surrenders to the Mullahs.
> You crow about a deal without knowing what's in it.  Why do you think the Iranians are celebrating?  Is it because the US got the best of them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he probably doesn't know or care
> 
> he's a Obama sheep
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He knows:
> 1) Obama negotiated it.
> 2) THe GOP and Israel oppose it.
> Ergo it must be a fantastic deal and anyone who opposes it is a racist.
Click to expand...


Not racist. Warmonger.


----------



## rightwinger

The Rabbi said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> The US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia think it is a good deal
> 
> Republicans say it sucks
> 
> Guess who is on the wrong side of history again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHo says they think it is a good deal?
Click to expand...


They signed up to it

Once again, Republicans are on the outside looking in

Why don't you tell us how much you hate the UN


----------



## velvtacheeze

usmcstinger said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction
> 
> It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.
> 
> But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:
> 
> Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another terrible forein policy move. Iran can not be trusted! Can our Government be trusted.
> This certainly inhibits the Iranian people's quest for freedom.
> 
> The US has thrown Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast States under the bus.
> 
> *Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in the Senate.*
> Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in Senate | Reuters
Click to expand...


What should the US do instead?


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So....
> 
> The US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia think it is a good deal
> 
> Republicans say it sucks
> 
> Guess who is on the wrong side of history again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHo says they think it is a good deal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They signed up to it
> 
> Once again, Republicans are on the outside looking in
> 
> Why don't you tell us how much you hate the UN
Click to expand...


You guys seem to love living in a fantasy world.

Nothing in this agreement says "Historic" or even effective.

This is another case of a mouse farting in the middle of a hurricane and the left calling it an explosion of epic proportions. It's a total exaggeration of the truth.


----------



## Jackson

Katzndogz said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no deal. Even the left leaning A.P. characterizes it as "slowing Iran's nuclear development". What kind of a deal is it when Iran keeps the nuclear pot boiling while the gullible Hussein administration believes  the propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already falling apart.  Iran says the agreement gives then the right to continue enriching uranium.  Kerry says it doesn't.
> 
> Is it too early to compare Kerry to Chamberlain?
Click to expand...


What????  Kerry was very clear about that!


----------



## mudwhistle

The liberals on the other thread are once again talking about an Obama sellout agreement like it was the Camp David Accords.


----------



## R.C. Christian

A war with Iran is inevitable. This temporary foreign policy change won't last.


----------



## blackhawk

People keep saying this is a great deal as I hear it Iran has agreed to put a hold on it's nuke program for six months and we have agreed t ease up on some of the sanctions for six months Iran has not agreed to give up it's pursuit of nukes for good and we have not agreed to end all sanctions for good as far as I can tell not much has really changed. Now maybe I'm missing something if so someone fill in the gaps to show why this is such a great deal.


----------



## mudwhistle

*Abject Surrender by the United States*
What does Israel do now?
8:50 AM, Nov 24, 2013  By JOHN BOLTON






Negotiations for an interim arrangement over Irans nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart.  After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result.  So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that no deal is better than a bad deal.


This interim agreement is badly skewed from Americas perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its right to enrichment in any final agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a comprehensive solution will involve a mutually defined enrichment program.  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a compromise on Irans claimed right to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.​
Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard


----------



## mudwhistle

This is the kind of deal that is designed to help liberals breathe a sigh of relief after the weeks of negative press their fearless leader has gotten over his massive screw ups. 


*Abject Surrender by the United States*
What does Israel do now?
8:50 AM, Nov 24, 2013 &#8226; By JOHN BOLTON






Negotiations for an &#8220;interim&#8221; arrangement over Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart.  After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result.  So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that &#8220;no deal is better than a bad deal.&#8221;


This interim agreement is badly skewed from America&#8217;s perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its &#8220;right&#8221; to enrichment in any &#8220;final&#8221; agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a &#8220;comprehensive solution&#8221; will &#8220;involve a mutually defined enrichment program.&#8221;  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a &#8220;compromise&#8221; on Iran&#8217;s claimed &#8220;right&#8221; to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.

In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.​
Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard


----------



## birddog

The Obama buttbuddies around here are misinformed, just plain wrong, and totally sickening!


----------



## R.C. Christian

WWIII is once again delayed so the president can get back to transforming America into a quasi-socialist, authoritarian state.


----------



## kiwiman127

People do realize that the Iran/nuclear agreement was not just US involvement but also the European Union was as involved?
*European Union Leadership On The Agreement On Iran's Nuclear Programme*
European Union Leadership On The Agreement On Iran's Nuclear Programme - TheStreet


----------



## Katzndogz

Jackson said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no deal. Even the left leaning A.P. characterizes it as "slowing Iran's nuclear development". What kind of a deal is it when Iran keeps the nuclear pot boiling while the gullible Hussein administration believes  the propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already falling apart.  Iran says the agreement gives then the right to continue enriching uranium.  Kerry says it doesn't.
> 
> Is it too early to compare Kerry to Chamberlain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What????  Kerry was very clear about that!
Click to expand...


Kerry thought he was clear.   The Iranians say it's very clear that they are free to enrich as much uranium as they want.  When are they getting the aid they were promised?

Instead of fighting over development of the bomb, they will argue over what the agreement says.   Meanwhile, like North Korea, Iran will be demanding their payment.


----------



## Jackson

The agreement, however, *does not require Iran to stop enriching uranium *to a low level of 3.5 percent, *or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges. * 

 In return for the initial agreement, the *United States agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Of this, roughly $4.2 billion would be oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks. *

*This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Irans nuclear program. *

*The fact that the accord would only pause the Iranian program was seized on by critics who said it would reward Iran for institutionalizing the status quo*. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/w...ran-on-nuclear-deal-hang-in-balance.html?_r=0

This isn't much of a deal.  Iran is smiling and the US appears as weak negotiators because we are.

Did the timing have something to do with it (Actually being a distraction to the failure of Obamacare) or is Obama - Kerry a failing team when it comes to negotiating?


----------



## usmcstinger

velvtacheeze said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction
> 
> It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.
> 
> But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:
> 
> Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another terrible forein policy move. Iran can not be trusted! Can our Government be trusted.
> This certainly inhibits the Iranian people's quest for freedom.
> 
> The US has thrown Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast States under the bus.
> 
> *Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in the Senate.*
> Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in Senate | Reuters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What should the US do instead?
Click to expand...


Can you read what Senator Reid intends to do?


----------



## bodecea

Stephanie said:


> well cry us riva
> 
> We don't all fall and grovel at Obama's feet



Strawman...who said anything about falling and groveling at President Obama's feet?


----------



## The Rabbi

bodecea said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> well cry us riva
> 
> We don't all fall and grovel at Obama's feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman...who said anything about falling and groveling at President Obama's feet?
Click to expand...


No one had to say anything.  The libs' response here is "You oppose the agreement only because Obama is black."
That is a non starter of an argument.


----------



## Jackson

velvtacheeze said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction
> 
> It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.
> 
> But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:
> 
> Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another terrible forein policy move. Iran can not be trusted! Can our Government be trusted.
> This certainly inhibits the Iranian people's quest for freedom.
> 
> The US has thrown Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast States under the bus.
> 
> *Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in the Senate.*
> Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in Senate | Reuters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What should the US do instead?
Click to expand...


It can't do anything.  Obama is working off an Executive Order.  He bypassed Congress again.  Unless, Congress worked together and passed a law that Obama could not enter into an agreement with Iran for three years!.. LOL


----------



## AceRothstein

The Rabbi said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> well cry us riva
> 
> We don't all fall and grovel at Obama's feet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman...who said anything about falling and groveling at President Obama's feet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one had to say anything.  The libs' response here is "You oppose the agreement only because Obama is black."
> That is a non starter of an argument.
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with Obama being black, you oppose everything he does because you hate him with the fire of 1,000 suns.


----------



## The Rabbi

AceRothstein said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman...who said anything about falling and groveling at President Obama's feet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one had to say anything.  The libs' response here is "You oppose the agreement only because Obama is black."
> That is a non starter of an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with Obama being black, you oppose everything he does because you hate him with the fire of 1,000 suns.
Click to expand...

No, its because everything he does is wrong and stupid and detrimental to America.
"If you like your health insurance, you can keep it.  Period."


----------



## AceRothstein

mudwhistle said:


> This is the kind of deal that is designed to help liberals breathe a sigh of relief after the weeks of negative press their fearless leader has gotten over his massive screw ups.
> 
> 
> *Abject Surrender by the United States*
> What does Israel do now?
> 8:50 AM, Nov 24, 2013  By JOHN BOLTON
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negotiations for an interim arrangement over Irans nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart.  After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result.  So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that no deal is better than a bad deal.
> 
> 
> This interim agreement is badly skewed from Americas perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its right to enrichment in any final agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a comprehensive solution will involve a mutually defined enrichment program.  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a compromise on Irans claimed right to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.
> 
> In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.​
> Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard



LOL, John "shoot first and ask questions later" Bolton

If he's against it then it must be good.


----------



## Darkwind

velvtacheeze said:


> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Cornyn, Texas Senator, Says Iran Deal Is Obamacare Distraction
> 
> It was predictable that GOP hawks like Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) wouldn't love the historic deal the Obama administration reached with Iran on Saturday night.
> 
> But Texas Senator John Cornyn had a unique, if completely bizarre, take on the agreement:
> 
> Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another terrible forein policy move. Iran can not be trusted! Can our Government be trusted.
> This certainly inhibits the Iranian people's quest for freedom.
> 
> The US has thrown Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast States under the bus.
> 
> *Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in the Senate.*
> Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in Senate | Reuters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What should the US do instead?
Click to expand...

Continue the sanctions until Iran agrees to unfettered access to the enrichment programs and facilities.  When we can verify that uranium and plutonium is or has been destroyed and the centrifuges are in Western hands, then we can talk about lifting sanctions.

Until then, the leaders of Iran will just have to continue to take heat from the death cries of their economy and people.


----------



## The Rabbi

AceRothstein said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of deal that is designed to help liberals breathe a sigh of relief after the weeks of negative press their fearless leader has gotten over his massive screw ups.
> 
> 
> *Abject Surrender by the United States*
> What does Israel do now?
> 8:50 AM, Nov 24, 2013  By JOHN BOLTON
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negotiations for an interim arrangement over Irans nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart.  After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result.  So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that no deal is better than a bad deal.
> 
> 
> This interim agreement is badly skewed from Americas perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its right to enrichment in any final agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a comprehensive solution will involve a mutually defined enrichment program.  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a compromise on Irans claimed right to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.
> 
> In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.​
> Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, John "shoot first and ask questions later" Bolton
> 
> If he's against it then it must be good.
Click to expand...


Typical.
John Bolton's left nut knows more about diplomacy and international relations than you'll learn in a lifetime.


----------



## mudwhistle

AceRothstein said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of deal that is designed to help liberals breathe a sigh of relief after the weeks of negative press their fearless leader has gotten over his massive screw ups.
> 
> 
> *Abject Surrender by the United States*
> What does Israel do now?
> 8:50 AM, Nov 24, 2013 &#8226; By JOHN BOLTON
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negotiations for an &#8220;interim&#8221; arrangement over Iran&#8217;s nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart.  After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result.  So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that &#8220;no deal is better than a bad deal.&#8221;
> 
> 
> This interim agreement is badly skewed from America&#8217;s perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its &#8220;right&#8221; to enrichment in any &#8220;final&#8221; agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a &#8220;comprehensive solution&#8221; will &#8220;involve a mutually defined enrichment program.&#8221;  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a &#8220;compromise&#8221; on Iran&#8217;s claimed &#8220;right&#8221; to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.
> 
> In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.​
> Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, John "shoot first and ask questions later" Bolton
> 
> If he's against it then it must be good.
Click to expand...


An overly simplistic response befitting someone with the grey matter of a Baboon. 

This is not a friggen joke you imbecile.


----------



## Jackson

Darkwind said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another terrible forein policy move. Iran can not be trusted! Can our Government be trusted.
> This certainly inhibits the Iranian people's quest for freedom.
> 
> The US has thrown Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast States under the bus.
> 
> *Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in the Senate.*
> Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in Senate | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should the US do instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Continue the sanctions until Iran agrees to unfettered access to the enrichment programs and facilities.  When we can verify that uranium and plutonium is or has been destroyed and the centrifuges are in Western hands, then we can talk about lifting sanctions.
> 
> Until then, the leaders of Iran will just have to continue to take heat from the death cries of their economy and people.
Click to expand...


That is what should have been done.  They blew that out of the water Royally.  Doesn't this agreement stand for 6 months?  Now that they gave in so easily, it's going to be so very hard to come back with a realistic negotiation.  I don't think it is a good idea to use Kerry.  There is an expectation with him that they get all the candy in the shop with him.

They should use someone fresh like John Bolton and a fresh approach.  Then demand twice what we will settle for but expect that all enrichment facilities will be destroyed.


----------



## Jackson

Keep Valerie Jarrett out of the mix.  I understand she is Iranian.


----------



## Darkwind

Jackson said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> What should the US do instead?
> 
> 
> 
> Continue the sanctions until Iran agrees to unfettered access to the enrichment programs and facilities.  When we can verify that uranium and plutonium is or has been destroyed and the centrifuges are in Western hands, then we can talk about lifting sanctions.
> 
> Until then, the leaders of Iran will just have to continue to take heat from the death cries of their economy and people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is what should have been done.  They blew that out of the water Royally.  Doesn't this agreement stand for 6 months?  Now that they gave in so easily, it's going to be so very hard to come back with a realistic negotiation.  I don't think it is a good idea to use Kerry.  There is an expectation with him that they get all the candy in the shop with him.
> 
> They should use someone fresh like John Bolton and a fresh approach.  Then demand twice what we will settle for but expect that all enrichment facilities will be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Depends on the type of agreement.  Some require ratification by Congress, some not so much.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

J.E.D said:


> what a scumbag



Hes more of an idiot. 

Also telling is the rights fear that the issues with the ACA will be resolved and no longer a weapon for the partisan right, exposing the fact that conservatives have no constructive policies of their own to promote, depending solely on being opposed to everything Obama.


----------



## AceRothstein

mudwhistle said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the kind of deal that is designed to help liberals breathe a sigh of relief after the weeks of negative press their fearless leader has gotten over his massive screw ups.
> 
> 
> *Abject Surrender by the United States*
> What does Israel do now?
> 8:50 AM, Nov 24, 2013  By JOHN BOLTON
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negotiations for an interim arrangement over Irans nuclear weapons program finally succeeded this past weekend, as Security Council foreign ministers (plus Germany) flew to Geneva to meet their Iranian counterpart.  After raising expectations of a deal by first convening on November 8-10, it would have been beyond humiliating to gather again without result.  So agreement was struck despite solemn incantations earlier that no deal is better than a bad deal.
> 
> 
> This interim agreement is badly skewed from Americas perspective.  Iran retains its full capacity to enrich uranium, thus abandoning a decade of Western insistence and Security Council resolutions that Iran stop all uranium-enrichment activities. Allowing Iran to continue enriching, and despite modest (indeed, utterly inadequate) measures to prevent it from increasing its enriched-uranium stockpiles and its overall nuclear infrastructure, lays the predicate for Iran fully enjoying its right to enrichment in any final agreement.  Indeed, the interim agreement itself acknowledges that a comprehensive solution will involve a mutually defined enrichment program.  This is not, as the Obama administration leaked before the deal became public, a compromise on Irans claimed right to enrichment. This is abject surrender by the United States.
> 
> In exchange for superficial concessions, Iran achieved three critical breakthroughs. First, it bought time to continue all aspects of its nuclear-weapons program the agreement does not cover (centrifuge manufacturing and testing; weaponization research and fabrication; and its entire ballistic missile program). Indeed, given that the interim agreement contemplates periodic renewals, Iran may have gained all of the time it needs to achieve weaponization not of simply a handful of nuclear weapons, but of dozens or more.​
> Abject Surrender by the United States | The Weekly Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, John "shoot first and ask questions later" Bolton
> 
> If he's against it then it must be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An overly simplistic response befitting someone with the grey matter of a Baboon.
> 
> This is not a friggen joke you imbecile.
Click to expand...


You are correct, it isn't a joke. That's why we shouldn't pay attention to Bolton's opinion.


----------



## Sunni Man

John Bolton is a hard core neo-con extremist who cares more about what's best for Israel than his own country America.   .


----------



## mudwhistle

Sunni Man said:


> John Bolton is a hard core neo-con extremist who cares more about what's best for Israel than his own country America.   .



I imagine that would be the opinion of a Muslim.

However, it isn't true. 

Fact is our security is intertwined with Israel.


----------



## mudwhistle

Obama just needed some good headlines.

This has all been so predictable. 

Do you think Obama would give a shit ether way if it weren't for Syria and for Obamacare, two major screw ups? 5 years into his presidency and all of the sudden Iran is important. He hasn't done a thing up until now to stop them, and all this does is make it easier on Iran.


----------



## Amelia

mudwhistle said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives are such patriots! If a Republican admin had reached a deal with Iran, they would be jerking each other off in celebration for all the world to see.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the media would be all over this and they would point out the flaws in this agreement.
> 
> By Monday morning it would have been totally trashed.
Click to expand...




Yep.




My plan is to wait until I hear more about the ramifications before I jump on any bandwagon.  But I don't mind others not waiting.  I won't hear about the ramifications if others aren't willing to jump into the fray and start judging.


----------



## rightwinger

Republicans don't get to ...

Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran

I can see why they are disappointed


----------



## HenryBHough

kObama?  Kenyan?  Evidence is mounting that it's not true.  The minority that felt He was a closet French surrender-monkey are seeming more credible with each passing day.


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> Rebblicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed



what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?

that saying belongs to your Dear Leader

but nice try

All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> Rebblicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed





You're quickly USMB's Village Idiot.


----------



## The Rabbi

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a scumbag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hes more of an idiot.
> 
> Also telling is the rights fear that the issues with the ACA will be resolved and no longer a weapon for the partisan right, exposing the fact that conservatives have no constructive policies of their own to promote, depending solely on being opposed to everything Obama.
Click to expand...


Trust me, the right has no such fears that issues with the ACA will be resolved.  The only resolution wll be its repeal.  Even the immensity of the program's destruction is just now being appreciated.  We knew it was bad.  We knew it would result in worse health care.  But few people had any idea just how much pain and suffering it was going to inflict.


----------



## Stephanie

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> J.E.D said:
> 
> 
> 
> what a scumbag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He&#8217;s more of an idiot.
> 
> Also telling is the right&#8217;s fear that the issues with the ACA will be resolved and no longer a &#8216;weapon&#8217; for the partisan right, exposing the fact that conservatives have no constructive policies of their own to promote, depending solely on being opposed to &#8216;everything Obama.&#8217;
Click to expand...


oh yeah, we're quaking in our boots over that
and now you're whining, they are only out to hurt the Dear leader....waaaaa

funny, you don't show any sympathy for the MILLIONS it is hurting by having their policies CANCELED over the Obamafailnocare
you really are partisan hack


----------



## R.C. Christian

I would love to see Israel go rogue. I'd laugh my ass off.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Katzndogz said:


> Isn't it a given that this is supposed to replace the obamacare failure in the headlines?



So Kerry got all the nations that were involved, including Iran, to concoct this scheme to come to an agreement on a certain day so that they could get Obamacare out of the headlines.

Seriously people, could you try to be normal just once in awhile?


----------



## Stephanie

AceRothstein said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman...who said anything about falling and groveling at President Obama's feet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one had to say anything.  The libs' response here is "You oppose the agreement only because Obama is black."
> That is a non starter of an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with Obama being black, you oppose everything he does because you hate him with the fire of 1,000 suns.
Click to expand...



waa waa
and you all loved loved loved Boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh
oh wait, you all hated him with the fire of 2000 suns
but here's this for ya


----------



## Dot Com

NYcarbineer said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it a given that this is supposed to replace the obamacare failure in the headlines?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Kerry got all the nations that were involved, including Iran, to concoct this scheme to come to an agreement on a certain day so that they could get Obamacare out of the headlines.
> 
> Seriously people, could you try to be normal just once in awhile?
Click to expand...


partisan rw poster (Katzndogz) is partisan. 

These negotiations aren't guaranteed to produce results at any predetermined time. Results happen when they happen EXCEPT in the right wingoverse.


----------



## Stephanie

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rebblicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're quickly USMB's Village Idiot.
Click to expand...


He's been there a long time in my book
remember he's RIGHT winger another faker


----------



## mudwhistle

R.C. Christian said:


> I would love to see Israel go rogue. I'd laugh my ass off.



The only thing that seems to hold them back is politics.


----------



## boedicca

Obama is desperate to salvage a legacy.   Just like he didn't care what was in the ObamaCare bill and spun a lie to sell it, he'll take this horrible deal and try to spin it as a success.

It's not.  It's a form of surrender.

Hopenchange!


----------



## bitterlyclingin

J.E.D said:


> what a scumbag




The real scumbag is the snake oil selling, used car selling, machiavellian manipulator with Beelzebub's cunning ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania,

Then:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"

Now:
"Lookie at the new and shiny free stuff I brought you, just for you. Touch it, feel it, marvel at it. Then marvel at me who brought it to you, Obamamandyas.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Darkwind said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> usmcstinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another terrible forein policy move. Iran can not be trusted! Can our Government be trusted.
> This certainly inhibits the Iranian people's quest for freedom.
> 
> The US has thrown Israel, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Coast States under the bus.
> 
> *Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in the Senate.*
> Reid committed to moving ahead with Iran sanctions in Senate | Reuters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What should the US do instead?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Continue the sanctions until Iran agrees to unfettered access to the enrichment programs and facilities.  When we can verify that uranium and plutonium is or has been destroyed and the centrifuges are in Western hands, then we can talk about lifting sanctions.
> 
> Until then, the leaders of Iran will just have to continue to take heat from the death cries of their economy and people.
Click to expand...


The Iranian people support their government's nuclear program, and are not angry with the their government over the sanctions.  They rightly blame the West for the sanctions.  

We have to reach an agreement that Iranians will support, and the demands of conservatives are not realistic, and the Iranians will never agree to them.  

But that's the point of the conservative's ridiculous demands.  Conservatives want war, because they're warmongers.


----------



## Mojo2

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> What Iran does is not our business.  Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.



Will it be our business if Iran gets nukes and that prompts the Saudis to get nukes?

Will it be our business if Israel goes up in a Mushroom cloud?

Will it be our business if the Russians or the Chinese rush into the Middle East to exert their influence in the region to arrange the situation over there to suit THEIR national interests while we sit on the sidelines?

To your way of thinking, when does it become our business?

When there is a World crisis and the only remedy left to us is a Nuclear one?

What about JFK's pledge?



> Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.



How can you celebrate his greatness and his courage on the 50th Anniversary of his death yet just walk away from the national mission statement he laid down and what we've lived by all these years??


----------



## velvtacheeze

birddog said:


> The Obama buttbuddies around here are misinformed, just plain wrong, and totally sickening!



Another war in the middle east over imaginary weapons of mass destruction would be misinformed, just plain wrong, and totally sickening.

Liberals were 100% vindicated by the flop and failure of the Iraq War, and its lack of any real WMD program.  

America has learned its lesson from the GOP's mistake, and voted in 2008 and 2012 not to repeat it by putting in Presidents dedicated to reimposing the failed GOP foreign policy of Dumbya. 

Conservatives really need to accept that and go be butthurt over something else.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Mojo2 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Iran does is not our business.  Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will it be our business if Iran gets nukes and that prompts the Saudis to get nukes?
> 
> Will it be our business if Israel goes up in a Mushroom cloud?
> 
> Will it be our business if the Russians or the Chinese rush into the Middle East to exert their influence in the region to arrange the situation over there to suit THEIR national interests while we sit on the sidelines?
> 
> To your way of thinking, when does it become our business?
> 
> When there is a World crisis and the only remedy left to us is a Nuclear one?
> 
> What about JFK's pledge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you celebrate his greatness and his courage on the 50th Anniversary of his death yet just walk away from the national mission statement he laid down and what we've lived by all these years??
Click to expand...


If we just left them alone , they wouldn't feel the need for a nuclear weapon.  The GOP's aggressive rhetoric is the root cause of the nuclear program.  The saber rattling is to blame.  Knock it off.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Clearly as long as the good folks at the UN approve of easing sanctions for those islamic lunatics, then its a wise decision....lol.  Those cowards were always going to leave the real work to the israelis anyway


----------



## Mojo2

velvtacheeze said:


> birddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama buttbuddies around here are misinformed, just plain wrong, and totally sickening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another war in the middle east over imaginary weapons of mass destruction would be misinformed, just plain wrong, and totally sickening.
> 
> Liberals were 100% vindicated by the flop and failure of the Iraq War, and its lack of any real WMD program.
> 
> America has learned its lesson from the GOP's mistake, and voted in 2008 and 2012 not to repeat it by putting in Presidents dedicated to reimposing the failed GOP foreign policy of Dumbya.
> 
> Conservatives really need to accept that and go be butthurt over something else.
Click to expand...


The re education camps won't have to worry about you. You are already singing their tune, aren't ya?

Seriously though, the problem you are going to have to deal with is that your liberal bedfellows are starting to get wise to what's going on with Obama and this lawless, anti-America administration and you are still stuck on stupid.


----------



## Erand7899

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> What Iran does is not our business.  Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.



To the contrary, our existence as a super power that supports the existence of Israel, is why we have become a terrorist target.  Simplistic, but true.


----------



## Kondor3

Katzndogz said:


> "..._Is it too early to compare Kerry to Chamberlain?_"


That same thought occurred to me in 2004.

Which is why I busted a gut over the lampooning of Kerry at the time.


Even more funny than the lambasting of Shrub.

And now the silly SOB is actually in a position of power.


----------



## Jackson

[MENTION=45791]Mojo2[/MENTION]  Thank you for this quote... it deserves to be printed again...




> *Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty* - JFK


.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Thats right, abandon support of israel and islamic neanderthals will embrace the west. F---ing imbeciles


----------



## Stephanie

You see the thread title?

If you don't AGREE with this administration, it's ABSURD...absurd they say

Obama has waved his HISTORIC magic wand and SAVED the whole world...so how absurd of you people not to GROVEL over it


----------



## velvtacheeze

Mojo2 said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> birddog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama buttbuddies around here are misinformed, just plain wrong, and totally sickening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another war in the middle east over imaginary weapons of mass destruction would be misinformed, just plain wrong, and totally sickening.
> 
> Liberals were 100% vindicated by the flop and failure of the Iraq War, and its lack of any real WMD program.
> 
> America has learned its lesson from the GOP's mistake, and voted in 2008 and 2012 not to repeat it by putting in Presidents dedicated to reimposing the failed GOP foreign policy of Dumbya.
> 
> Conservatives really need to accept that and go be butthurt over something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The re education camps won't have to worry about you. You are already singing their tune, aren't ya?
> 
> Seriously though, the problem you are going to have to deal with is that your liberal bedfellows are starting to get wise to what's going on with Obama and this lawless, anti-America administration and you are still stuck on stupid.
Click to expand...


My liberal bedfellows learned one lesson: The Bush administration's foreign policy was a clusterf___ , and avoiding repeating it would be the right thing to do.  

That's what Obama has done very well.

No more wars, neocon warmonger loserboys. Go be Butthurt over something else.


----------



## Sunni Man

mudwhistle said:


> Fact is our security is intertwined with Israel.


I hear pro Israel people say that all the time.

But when I ask for an example they are strangely silent.    .


----------



## Kondor3

Settle down, people...

This doesn't mean diddly-squat, in the final analysis...

This is only an interim 6-month band-aid on a much larger problem...

Best to hold-off on making any hasty judgments one way or another until next April or May...

When they start dealing with the Tough Stuff on a more permanent basis...


----------



## mudwhistle

Sunni Man said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is our security is intertwined with Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> I hear pro Israel people say that all the time.
> 
> But when I ask for an example they are strangely silent.    .
Click to expand...


I'll give you a reason brother.

They are the only stable government in the Middle-East with a real Democracy.

They are a stop-gap against religious radicals that want to take over the oil fields to damage the United States.


----------



## Pheonixops

Stephanie said:


> you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake
> 
> BY:  Washington Free Beacon Staff
> November 24, 2013 9:38 am
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal,  a historic mistake, its not made the world a safer place.
> 
> from
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon



Well, the six world powers who agreed to this deal, disagree with netanyahu. If he doesn't like it, that's his problem and he can deal with it. If we are making headway in a positive direction with Iran, I think that's a good thing.


----------



## Jackson

Kondor3 said:


> Settle down, people...
> 
> This doesn't mean diddly-squat, in the final analysis...
> 
> This is only an interim 6-month band-aid on a much larger problem...
> 
> Best to hold-off on making any hasty judgments one way or another until next April or May...
> 
> When they start dealing with the Tough Stuff on a more permanent basis...



The Obama administration has set a precedent of giving in.  Get Kerry and Jarrett out of there and get someone stronger in there without a daily influence of Obama.


----------



## Mojo2

velvtacheeze said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Iran does is not our business.  Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will it be our business if Iran gets nukes and that prompts the Saudis to get nukes?
> 
> Will it be our business if Israel goes up in a Mushroom cloud?
> 
> Will it be our business if the Russians or the Chinese rush into the Middle East to exert their influence in the region to arrange the situation over there to suit THEIR national interests while we sit on the sidelines?
> 
> To your way of thinking, when does it become our business?
> 
> When there is a World crisis and the only remedy left to us is a Nuclear one?
> 
> What about JFK's pledge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How can you celebrate his greatness and his courage on the 50th Anniversary of his death yet just walk away from the national mission statement he laid down and what we've lived by all these years??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we just left them alone , they wouldn't feel the need for a nuclear weapon.  The GOP's aggressive rhetoric is the root cause of the nuclear program.  The saber rattling is to blame.  Knock it off.
Click to expand...


Here, read this and you'll be smarter than you were when you woke up this morning.



> The Little Green Book is a collection of fatawah handed down by the most prominent and arguably one of the most influential Muslim clerics in modern history; the Grand Ayatollah Seyyed Ruhollah Mosavi Khomeini, commonly known as the Ayatollah Khomeini. Fatawah (the plural of fatwah) are Islamic religious decrees sent down by Muslim religious leaders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Islam demands that Muslims abide by Sharia - Islamic law as individuals and as a society, these fatawah are not simply religious insights or advice. They are legal pronouncements, and define the law of the land in an Islamic country.
> 
> 
> 
> In his unrivaled role as Iran's Supreme Leader and the highest-ranking cleric for Shi'a Muslims, the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatawah guided the lives of more Shi'a Muslims than did any other Islamic leader throughout history.
> 
> It would have been damning to Islam if these inane, absurd, and depraved rantings had come from any Muslim, since they would serve as an example of how Islam corrupts a person's mind. Beyond that however, *anyone who takes the time to analyze Islam's scriptures and what is recorded in Islam about Muhammad, the man whose life sets the standard to which Muslims are to strive, will see that the Ayatollah Khomeini was not off-base in his Islamic jurisprudence.*
> 
> Damning souls and working with Satan never seems to bring out smiles. Sneers and leers, but not smiles.
> 
> This version of The Little Green Book, is a translation done by Harold Salemson, whose source was a French translation of the Ayatollah's fatawah compiled by a Persian named Jean-Marie Xaviere. The book is broken up into two volumes. The first volume deals with governing issues, and is so chock full of amazing quotes, we had to give up on trying to highlight the best ones. The second volume focuses on lifestyle guidelines, and tends to be a bit mundane.
> 
> However, some of the more astoundingly reprehensible whoppers are in this section. Additionally, the emphasis placed on defining even the most miniscule details for a Muslim to follow serve as a tremendous example of how Islam thrives on replacing every last iota of independent thought with mindless servitude. Of course, this should not come as a surprise to anyone, since the religion's name literally means Submission (Islam), and its followers refer to themselves as "those who submit" (Muslims).
> 
> The Little Green Book is a quick read. In fact, it's probably shorter than some of Craig Winn's email responses. Additionally, much of it is so absurd, it's quite entertaining. That is, until you realize that this isn't a joke and you remember that billions of people are affected by these fatawah and thousands more like them from multitudes of other Islamic leaders.
Click to expand...


Prophet of Doom - The Little Green Book - Introduction

Your attitude disregards the mission of Islam.

To completely conquer and dominate every non-Islamic religion and every non-Islamic Government on Earth.

To help make it clear to you, using a Thanksgiving analogy:

Even if the turkey rancher is over on the far end of the ranch killing turkeys tell us which turkey ANYWHERE on the ranch can truly feel safe?

Just because the Muslim aggression is taking advantage of the lack of sufficient defenses in the Mid East doesn't mean we are safe.

It's just a matter of time.

And you want to give the Muslim aggressors all the time they need to pile up their victories and amass their resources from defeating less powerful foes before they are ready to address US here.

They will just eat us LAST if we adopt your way of looking at this problem.

We need to be engaged in stopping their aggression BEFORE they are ready to face us at their full strength.

Before we have no other allies to rely on for assistance.


----------



## Stephanie

Pheonixops said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake
> 
> BY:  Washington Free Beacon Staff
> November 24, 2013 9:38 am
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal,  a historic mistake, its not made the world a safer place.
> 
> from
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the six world powers who agreed to this deal, disagree with netanyahu. If he doesn't like it, that's his problem and he can deal with it. If we are making headway in a positive direction with Iran, I think that's a good thing.
Click to expand...


world powers?
really


----------



## Geaux4it

So Obama sells out Israel huh? This deal will cave like ACA

Israel should go ahead and attack them now Obama just threw them under the bus

-Geaux


----------



## velvtacheeze

Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too.  It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.  

But it's not working now.  Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran.  Go be Butthurt over something else.


----------



## Sunni Man

mudwhistle said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is our security is intertwined with Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> I hear pro Israel people say that all the time.
> 
> But when I ask for an example they are strangely silent.    .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll give you a reason brother.
> 
> They are the only stable government in the Middle-East with a real Democracy.
> 
> They are a stop-gap against religious radicals that want to take over the oil fields to damage the United States.
Click to expand...

#1) Israel has zip to do with the oil fields in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, etc.

#2) Turkey is a very stable democracy in the Middle East.

#3) Israel failed in it's supposed role of providing intel to the U.S. .....9/11, USS Cole, Beirut barracks bombing, Benghazi, WMD's in Iraq, etc.      .


----------



## blackhawk

rightwinger said:


> Rebblicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed



Dumb, dumb, dumb......., dumb, dumb response.


----------



## Jackson

velvtacheeze said:


> Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too.  It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.
> 
> But it's not working now.  Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran.  Go be Butthurt over something else.



You don't learn things easily, do you?  Stop with the Iraq War.  We are pages beyond that.  We are talking about Iran now, the agreement just made.  Did you read the post about the Little Green Book? Read things and learn.


----------



## Stephanie

Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?
US Dept of Treasury: Iran Sanctions ^ | Multiple | Multiple 

Posted on Sunday, November 24, 2013 2:59:25 PM by Innovative

H.R. 2194 (111th): Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) The illicit nuclear activities of the Government of Iran, combined with its development of unconventional weapons and ballistic missiles and its support for international terrorism, represent a threat to the security of the United States, its strong ally Israel, and other allies of the United States around the world. (2) The United States and other responsible countries have a vital interest in working together to prevent the Government of Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. (3) The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly called attention to Iran&#8217;s illicit nuclear activities and, as a result, the United Nations Security Council has adopted a range of sanctions designed to encourage the Government of Iran to suspend those activities and comply with its obligations under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, done at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1, 1968, and entered into force March 5, 1970 (commonly known as the &#8216;&#8216;Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty&#8217;&#8217. (4) The serious and urgent nature of the threat from Iran demands that the United States work together with its allies to do everything possible&#8212;diplomatically, politically, and economically&#8212;to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. 

Senate Vote on Passage 

Jun 24, 2010 2:54 p.m. 

Conference Report Agreed to 99/0 

House Vote on Passage 

Jun 24, 2010 7:16 p.m. 

Passed 408/8 

This bill was enacted after being signed by the President on July 1, 2010.


(Excerpt) Read more at treasury.gov ...


h/t
Freerepublic.com


----------



## Mojo2

Pheonixops said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake
> 
> BY:  Washington Free Beacon Staff
> November 24, 2013 9:38 am
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal,  a historic mistake, its not made the world a safer place.
> 
> from
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the six world powers who agreed to this deal, disagree with netanyahu. If he doesn't like it, that's his problem and he can deal with it. If we are making headway in a positive direction with Iran, I think that's a good thing.
Click to expand...


Are you the frigging reincarnation of that fuckin Brit appeaser, Nevillie Chamberlain???

Tell me how your attitude is any different from the Brits and the French selling Czechoslovakia down the river to Hitler?


----------



## LogikAndReazon

It as awe inspiring as clintons deal with the north koreans.   Pure genius indeed.


----------



## Mojo2

Erand7899 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Iran does is not our business.  Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the contrary, our existence as a super power that supports the existence of Israel, is why we have become a terrorist target.  Simplistic, but true.
Click to expand...


And if we just submit we will all be okay.

Right?

Israel fights for itself as well as for US. 

NOT the other way around.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Republicans never cease to amaze me - like when America finally got Bin Laden. 

"No one is safe!"


----------



## velvtacheeze

Mojo2 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake
> 
> BY:  Washington Free Beacon Staff
> November 24, 2013 9:38 am
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal,  a historic mistake, its not made the world a safer place.
> 
> from
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the six world powers who agreed to this deal, disagree with netanyahu. If he doesn't like it, that's his problem and he can deal with it. If we are making headway in a positive direction with Iran, I think that's a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you the frigging reincarnation of that fuckin Brit appeaser, Nevillie Chamberlain???
> 
> Tell me how your attitude is any different from the Brits and the French selling Czechoslovakia down the river to Hitler?
Click to expand...


Okay, conservatives tried the "Chamberlain" name-calling tactic before the Iraq War, and it worked. 

It's not working now.

The lesson from history that we need to learn is not Chamberlain's agreement, but George Dumbya Bush's failed and flopped Iraq War debacle.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Jackson said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too.  It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.
> 
> But it's not working now.  Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran.  Go be Butthurt over something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't learn things easily, do you?  Stop with the Iraq War.  We are pages beyond that.  We are talking about Iran now, the agreement just made.  Did you read the post about the Little Green Book? Read things and learn.
Click to expand...


No, I will not stop with the Iraq War.  It's was a failure, and its example will be used against proponents of a more aggressive policy against Iran. Get over it. 

The same doofs who wanted a war in Iraq want a war on Iran.  And the failure of the Iraq War will be used against conservatives.  Tough cookies. 

Liberals were 100% vindicated by the debacle of the Iraq War, and liberal warnings should have been heeded. 

Liberal policies will now be imposed instead of warmongering conservative policies. Deal with it. 

Liberals get to run the foreign policy of the US now.  Get over it.  There will be more peace and less war.  It's on you to get past that.


----------



## TooTall

Katzndogz said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no deal. Even the left leaning A.P. characterizes it as "slowing Iran's nuclear development". What kind of a deal is it when Iran keeps the nuclear pot boiling while the gullible Hussein administration believes  the propaganda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's already falling apart.  Iran says the agreement gives then the right to continue enriching uranium.  Kerry says it doesn't.
> 
> Is it too early to compare Kerry to Chamberlain?
Click to expand...


No comparison.  Chamberlain didn't testify that he heard about British soldiers committing atrocities during any war.  Kerry did, while we were still taking casualties in Vietnam.

I often wonder when Kerry will turn on all of the veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Mojo2

velvtacheeze said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another war in the middle east over imaginary weapons of mass destruction would be misinformed, just plain wrong, and totally sickening.
> 
> Liberals were 100% vindicated by the flop and failure of the Iraq War, and its lack of any real WMD program.
> 
> America has learned its lesson from the GOP's mistake, and voted in 2008 and 2012 not to repeat it by putting in Presidents dedicated to reimposing the failed GOP foreign policy of Dumbya.
> 
> Conservatives really need to accept that and go be butthurt over something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The re education camps won't have to worry about you. You are already singing their tune, aren't ya?
> 
> Seriously though, the problem you are going to have to deal with is that your liberal bedfellows are starting to get wise to what's going on with Obama and this lawless, anti-America administration and you are still stuck on stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My liberal bedfellows learned one lesson: The Bush administration's foreign policy was a clusterf___ , and avoiding repeating it would be the right thing to do.
> 
> That's what Obama has done very well.
> 
> No more wars, neocon warmonger loserboys. Go be Butthurt over something else.
Click to expand...


No, you find something else to champion and another cause to dig in your heels to defend.

I'll give you credit for trying to be patriotic but you've chosen the wrong team to play for.


----------



## Stephanie

What's absurd, is we have a commie sympathizer/ traitor  to our military (Jon Kerry) making deals with Iran


----------



## TooTall

velvtacheeze said:


> Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too.  It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.
> 
> But it's not working now.  Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran.  Go be Butthurt over something else.



Are you referring to these 'conservatives'?  And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
   - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
   - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
   - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
   - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
   - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
   - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
   - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
   - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
   - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
   - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
   - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
   - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
   - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002


----------



## Amelia

Jackson said:


> The agreement, however, *does not require Iran to stop enriching uranium *to a low level of 3.5 percent, *or to dismantle any of its existing centrifuges. *
> 
> In return for the initial agreement, the *United States agreed to provide $6 billion to $7 billion in sanctions relief. Of this, roughly $4.2 billion would be oil revenue that has been frozen in foreign banks. *
> 
> *This limited sanctions relief can be accomplished by executive order, allowing the Obama administration to make the deal without having to appeal to Congress, where there is strong criticism of any agreement that does not fully dismantle Irans nuclear program. *
> 
> *The fact that the accord would only pause the Iranian program was seized on by critics who said it would reward Iran for institutionalizing the status quo*.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/w...ran-on-nuclear-deal-hang-in-balance.html?_r=0
> 
> This isn't much of a deal.  Iran is smiling and the US appears as weak negotiators because we are.
> 
> Did the timing have something to do with it (Actually being a distraction to the failure of Obamacare) or is Obama - Kerry a failing team when it comes to negotiating?




They had to have something they could call a win.

It's just like the ACA in that regard.  Didn't matter how bad the legislation was, it had to pass.  Obama needed something he could label a win no matter how far away it was from what he promised.

After the Syria keystone cops debacle and the unraveling of Obama's domestic agenda, it hardly mattered what agreement Kerry came up with just as long as they could call it a win.

I am not commenting on how good or bad the Iran agreement is -- just saying that it's irrelevant to the Obama administration how good or bad it is.  They needed something done and they needed it soonest and they were going to call it a win no matter what it was.


----------



## Mojo2

velvtacheeze said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too.  It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.
> 
> But it's not working now.  Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran.  Go be Butthurt over something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't learn things easily, do you?  Stop with the Iraq War.  We are pages beyond that.  We are talking about Iran now, the agreement just made.  Did you read the post about the Little Green Book? Read things and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I will not stop with the Iraq War.  It's was a failure, and its example will be used against proponents of a more aggressive policy against Iran. Get over it.
> 
> The same doofs who wanted a war in Iraq want a war on Iran.  And the failure of the Iraq War will be used against conservatives.  Tough cookies.
> 
> Liberals were 100% vindicated by the debacle of the Iraq War, and liberal warnings should have been heeded.
> 
> Liberal policies will now be imposed instead of warmongering conservative policies. Deal with it.
> 
> Liberals get to run the foreign policy of the US now.  Get over it.  There will be more peace and less war.  It's on you to get past that.
Click to expand...


There's always some dumb son of a bitch who doesn't read the memo.

You haven't paid attention to what has been learned since you last engaged in this matter.

Well, here's something you missed.

We now know that Bush was justified in invading Iraq.

Two reasons.

One.

Saddam had been intentionally leading the world, and more specifically, his hostile neighbors, into believing he actually possessed WMD's as a way to keep them from invading Iraq again. (You recall the eight year Iran/Iraq war that killed millions, right?)

This admission came in a CBS 60 Minutes broadcast with Saddam's FBI interrogator, George Piro.

 [ame=http://youtu.be/KDKTqD9_jhM?t=23s]Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions: No WMDS! - YouTube[/ame]

And the second reason is that GWB gave Saddam more than enough time to leave and avoid war.

Or to give up his WMD's and/or come clean.



> *US President George W Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein a 48-hour deadline to flee Iraq or face a US-led invasion, saying coalition forces will wage war "at a time of our choosing."*
> 
> The President, commander in chief of 250,000 US troops poised at the borders of Iraq, told the Iraqi people: "The day of your liberation is near."
> 
> Mr Bush issued the ultimatum after UN allies refused to back his bid for a resolution sanctioning military conflict. The diplomatic defeat forced Mr Bush to move toward war with Britain, Spain, Australia and a handful of other nations in his self-described "coalition of the willing".
> 
> Mr Bush warned that war could lead to retaliatory strikes by terrorists on US interests and home and abroad, and said he had ordered increased security at airports and along US waterways.
> 
> "These attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible," he said. "We will not be intimidated by thugs and killers."
> 
> For the first time since he drew the nation's attention to Iraq last year, Mr Bush focused on the questions most asked by Americans: Why war? And why now?
> 
> Spelling out the threat, he said Saddam has weapons of mass destruction he might share with terrorists, has a history of hating Americans and is a destabilising force in the Middle East.
> 
> "The United States did nothing to deserve or invite this threat but we will do everything to defeat it. Instead of drifting along toward tragedy, we will set a course toward safety," the president said from the White House.
> 
> "The tyrant will soon be gone," he said.



Bush tells Saddam: flee Iraq or face war | Mail Online


----------



## Erand7899

Mojo2 said:


> Erand7899 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> What Iran does is not our business.  Our interference in the Middle East for the past 60 plus years is why we've become a terrorist target.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To the contrary, our existence as a super power that supports the existence of Israel, is why we have become a terrorist target.  Simplistic, but true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if we just submit we will all be okay.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Israel fights for itself as well as for US.
> 
> NOT the other way around.
Click to expand...


Obviously, my comments were far too simplistic for your comprehension.  We will always be a target of radical Islamists because we are a superpower that stands in their way of world conquest.  We also support Israel and that makes us a double target.  Submission to the demands of the terrorists would only lead to more demands.  

Our mistakes in the Middle East involve vain attempts at creating democratic societies in countries that are nowhere near ready for democracy.  We should have left Iraq shortly after we defeated Saddam, and let the Iraqis figure out their own future.  The same applies to Afghanistan.  

I fully support the United States backing of Israel, and I fully support sending Iran back into the stone age.  Bomb their power plants and their refineries and leave them in the dark and on foot.  Hard to build a nuclear bomb in that atmosphere.


----------



## Pheonixops

Stephanie said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake
> 
> BY:  Washington Free Beacon Staff
> November 24, 2013 9:38 am
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal,  a historic mistake, its not made the world a safer place.
> 
> from
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the six world powers who agreed to this deal, disagree with netanyahu. If he doesn't like it, that's his problem and he can deal with it. If we are making headway in a positive direction with Iran, I think that's a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> world powers?
> really
Click to expand...


That's what they were referred to in the article. I'm guessing it may be the EU and some other countries. My main point is that if we can at least start a dialogue and try and move this forward in a peaceful and mutually beneficial manner, it's worth a try. 

I have no angst toward Israel as a nation, there are a lot of good people there and I wish them well. I'm sure that there are plenty of Israelis who don't like netanyahu's policies as well. 

Israelis Protest Against Budget, PM's Expenses - Inside Israel - News - Israel National News


----------



## rightwinger

Stephanie said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rebblicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?
> 
> that saying belongs to your Dear Leader
> 
> but nice try
> 
> All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again
Click to expand...


Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion

A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans


----------



## Pheonixops

Mojo2 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you Obama cult followers are a danger to us and our country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake
> 
> BY:  Washington Free Beacon Staff
> November 24, 2013 9:38 am
> 
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake - YouTube
> 
> Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was less than pleased with the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal. Prime Minister Netanyahu called the deal,  a historic mistake, its not made the world a safer place.
> 
> from
> Netanyahu: Iran Nuclear Deal Is A Historic Mistake | Washington Free Beacon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the six world powers who agreed to this deal, disagree with netanyahu. If he doesn't like it, that's his problem and he can deal with it. If we are making headway in a positive direction with Iran, I think that's a good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you the frigging reincarnation of that fuckin Brit appeaser, Nevillie Chamberlain???
> 
> Tell me how your attitude is any different from the Brits and the French selling Czechoslovakia down the river to Hitler?
Click to expand...


LOL, why would you say that?

That's a totally silly comparison, maybe you can articulate your reason for that comparison so I can understand better.


----------



## HenryBHough

Capitulate first then grovel.

Yeah, this "president" has established a pattern.......


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rebblicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?
> 
> that saying belongs to your Dear Leader
> 
> but nice try
> 
> All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion
> 
> A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans
Click to expand...


what did he resolve?
so now everything is all about INVASION..he can bomb bomb bomb the hell out of counties and you don't call that, Invading them? now all those countries HATE US
what a joke


----------



## velvtacheeze

TooTall said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too.  It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.
> 
> But it's not working now.  Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran.  Go be Butthurt over something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to these 'conservatives'?  And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?
> 
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
> 
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
> 
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
> 
> "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
> 
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
> Letter to President Clinton.
> - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
> 
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
> 
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
> 
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
> 
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
> -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
> 
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
> 
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
> 
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
> 
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
> 
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
> 
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
> 
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Click to expand...


They changed their mind after it was obvious that the Iraq War was a mistake.


----------



## Mojo2

TooTall said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too.  It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.
> 
> But it's not working now.  Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran.  Go be Butthurt over something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to these 'conservatives'?  And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?
> 
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
> 
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
> 
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
> 
> "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
> 
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
> Letter to President Clinton.
> - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
> 
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
> 
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
> 
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
> 
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
> -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
> 
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
> 
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
> 
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
> 
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
> 
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
> 
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
> 
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
Click to expand...



Great post!

Here's my 2 cents!

This is by a critic of the war and the Right.

_"The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 defined 'regime change' as the official U.S. policy toward Iraq. That regime change sanctions bill was cited as a basis for the Authorization of Military Force Against Iraq in 2002; the infamous vote that ushered in the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003."_

FCNL: Iran Leak Reveals Senate Push for Regime Change​


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rebblicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?
> 
> that saying belongs to your Dear Leader
> 
> but nice try
> 
> All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion
> 
> A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans
Click to expand...


Problem is people died as a result of Obama's involvement in Syria and Libya. Egypt did a total reversal from Obama's efforts, so erase that one. 

What you consider to be a success is highly dubious. I'm not going into details because they are quite lengthy and already explained to you on numerous occasions.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Jackson said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down, people...
> 
> This doesn't mean diddly-squat, in the final analysis...
> 
> This is only an interim 6-month band-aid on a much larger problem...
> 
> Best to hold-off on making any hasty judgments one way or another until next April or May...
> 
> When they start dealing with the Tough Stuff on a more permanent basis...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has set a precedent of giving in.  Get Kerry and Jarrett out of there and get someone stronger in there without a daily influence of Obama.
Click to expand...


Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.

Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.


----------



## mudwhistle

velvtacheeze said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down, people...
> 
> This doesn't mean diddly-squat, in the final analysis...
> 
> This is only an interim 6-month band-aid on a much larger problem...
> 
> Best to hold-off on making any hasty judgments one way or another until next April or May...
> 
> When they start dealing with the Tough Stuff on a more permanent basis...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has set a precedent of giving in.  Get Kerry and Jarrett out of there and get someone stronger in there without a daily influence of Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.
> 
> Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.
Click to expand...


Allowing Iran to go nuclear is like allowing Charles Manson to go nuclear. 

They can close down oil production in the region within hours and start a war the will inflame our terrible relations with Russia even further.


----------



## velvtacheeze

mudwhistle said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has set a precedent of giving in.  Get Kerry and Jarrett out of there and get someone stronger in there without a daily influence of Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.
> 
> Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing Iran to go nuclear is like allowing Charles Manson to go nuclear.
> 
> They can close down oil production in the region within hours and start a war the will inflame our terrible relations with Russia even further.
Click to expand...


Why would Iran want to start a war? Why would they want to close down oil production?  They would have nothing to gain from it.  You wingers have gone INSANE.


----------



## Jackson

Stephanie has a new thread which brings up a new question. 

*Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?*

Can an Executive Order negate an existing law?

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...nts/hr2194.pdf

We need experts to weigh in here.


----------



## Pheonixops

TemplarKormac said:


> In the meantime, I predict liberals here will try to somehow use this as a cover for the failure of Obamacare.



That's sounds like an RNC talking point, I expect to hear the same crap being spewed by hannity, limbaugh, beck and the rest of that group.

Obomacare and Iran are two separate issues.


----------



## mudwhistle

velvtacheeze said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.
> 
> Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing Iran to go nuclear is like allowing Charles Manson to go nuclear.
> 
> They can close down oil production in the region within hours and start a war the will inflame our terrible relations with Russia even further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Iran want to start a war? Why would they want to close down oil production?  They would have nothing to gain from it.  You wingers have gone INSANE.
Click to expand...


Actually the leaders in Iran are pretty insane. They dream of wiping out Israel and cutting off the Gulf from oil production to it's customers like the U.S. It's why the Saudis are buying nukes for Pakistan.


----------



## blackhawk

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rebblicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?
> 
> that saying belongs to your Dear Leader
> 
> but nice try
> 
> All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion
> 
> A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans
Click to expand...


There is still a civil war going on in Syria and the man Obama said must go Assad is still in power no matter how we might have felt about him a democratically elected leader in Morsi was overthrown by the military this comes after we threw the man before him under the bus and of course Libya where we had a consulate and C.I.A annex attacked our ambassador and three others murdered. Ignoring a problem till it comes back to bite you in the ass is not resolving it.


----------



## Mojo2

velvtacheeze said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives tried that argument for the Iraq War too.  It worked then, I admit, to convince Americans to support the Iraq War.
> 
> But it's not working now.  Sorry, but there will be no war on Iran.  Go be Butthurt over something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to these 'conservatives'?  And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?
> 
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
> 
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
> 
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
> 
> "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
> 
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
> Letter to President Clinton.
> - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
> 
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
> 
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
> 
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
> 
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
> -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
> 
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
> 
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
> 
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
> 
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
> 
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
> 
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
> 
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They changed their mind after it was obvious that the Iraq War was a mistake.
Click to expand...


When it became clear to me what great and wonderful outcomes might result from a successful conduct of the Invasion/War/Transition/Handover/Withdrawal, I became a big fan of GWB and supported a successful outcome in Iraq rather a sure defeat as the Dems. were (and in the media still are) pushing for.

Remember, the war could have gone either way. And but for a _few events_ it would have been seen as a big win for the Iraqi people, the American people, the Bush administration, American prestige and respect abroad, future engagements with foreign leaders, 'Conservatism', and lastly, it would have been a big win for GWB.  

Yeah. The year 2000 marked a turning point. The election and the recount brought out the worst in the passionate, impulsive, out of control Liberals and Leftists.

And those passions have sometimes turned to hatred and it has become a movement and it has only spread and grown hotter since then. 

Bottom line: I changed my mind after I saw what a great thing COULD have resulted if everyone involved was working towards victory.

And there are STILL a whole crap load of Libs and Lefts who would have PREFERRED we'd lost and left Iraq in disgrace.


----------



## The Rabbi

Jackson said:


> Stephanie has a new thread which brings up a new question.
> 
> *Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?*
> 
> Can an Executive Order negate an existing law?
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...nts/hr2194.pdf
> 
> We need experts to weigh in here.



Laws for this administration are merely inconveniences on their road to ruin.


----------



## mudwhistle

blackhawk said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> what happened to bomb bomb bomb Syria? Libya, and every other country he can in the middle east?
> 
> that saying belongs to your Dear Leader
> 
> but nice try
> 
> All this does is buy them off for a couple years if that long... then another President will have to deal with them again and again and again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Much like Syria, Egypt and Libya....he resolved the issue without resorting to a US invasion
> 
> A welcome change from the invade first, find a reason later, Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *There is still a civil war going on in Syria *and the man Obama said must go Assad is still in power no matter how we might have felt about him a democratically elected leader in Morsi was overthrown by the military this comes after we threw the man before him under the bus and of course Libya where we had a consulate and C.I.A annex attacked our ambassador and three others murdered. Ignoring a problem till it comes back to bite you in the ass is not resolving it.
Click to expand...


Yeah but the media stopped covering Syria cuz it was making Obama look bad, so now it doesn't exist.


----------



## HenryBHough

Sometimes the obvious has to be stated for the sake of the oblivious and it's a rare talent to be able to do it so well!


----------



## mudwhistle

Obama seems to be specializing in making heroes out of our enemies. 

Everyone is getting over on him.



> Tehran (AFP) - Iranians hopeful that a nuclear deal with world powers will ease their economic woes found a hero in Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, showering him with thanks on the Internet.
> 
> Many had stayed up all night, glued to satellite channels and computer screens for updates on exhaustive negotiations in Geneva that stretched into a fifth day in the early hours of Sunday.
> 
> When news broke out -- at around 05:30 am local time -- that an historic agreement had been clinched by Iran and six world powers, joyful messages flooded the Internet.
> 
> "Thank you negotiators! Thank you Mr Zarif," Tehran student Ahmad tweeted.
> 
> "God bless you smiling man," read a message on Zarif's Facebook page, referring to his customary expression. "Your smile has made a nation happy."


Iranians hail 'smiling' FM as hero of nuclear deal


----------



## Mojo2

rightwinger said:


> Republicans don't get to ...
> 
> Bomb, bomb, bomb......bomb, bomb Iran
> 
> I can see why they are disappointed



Anything to defeat a nation filled to the rim with enough young Jihadis born AFTER the Iran/Iraq War, who are bent on disrupting our society and government from getting nuclear weapons.

If we could prevent that in other ways would I support that?

Yes.

But the bottom line is that Islamic Jihad is going to be experienced there or here. Later or sooner.

What is the best way to stop that threat?


----------



## mudwhistle

Making nice with a terrorist nation that has murdered our people in all parts of the world since 1979 is asking for trouble.


----------



## Geaux4it

velvtacheeze said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.
> 
> Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing Iran to go nuclear is like allowing Charles Manson to go nuclear.
> 
> They can close down oil production in the region within hours and start a war the will inflame our terrible relations with Russia even further.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would Iran want to start a war? Why would they want to close down oil production?  They would have nothing to gain from it.  You wingers have gone INSANE.
Click to expand...


Oh I don't know, maybe because they have threatened to wipe Israel off the map?

Jus sayin

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

mudwhistle said:


> Making nice with a terrorist nation that has murdered our people in all parts of the world since 1979 is asking for trouble.



Indeed- Our intelligence already knows that Iran is behind many of the IED's that killed amd maimed our troops

-Geaux


----------



## francoHFW

tyroneweaver said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Sorry, hater dupes- no dumbass war for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you say this iranians using iraqi air space for their war in syria...sheeesh
Click to expand...


They're covert and sneaky like the GOP- who've wrecked them- but Iran hasn't actually attacked anyone in 2400 years. Youngest country outside of Africa too- about to get civilized... SORRY.


----------



## starflight

We have more than enough problems without starting another war.


----------



## mudwhistle

francoHFW said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Sorry, hater dupes- no dumbass war for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you say this iranians using iraqi air space for their war in syria...sheeesh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're covert and sneaky like the GOP- who've wrecked them- but Iran hasn't actually attacked anyone in 2400 years. Youngest country outside of Africa too- about to get civilized... SORRY.
Click to expand...


Nope, they didn't even attack Iraq. 

That war was just made up. 8 years of death and mayhem.

BTW, have you ever looked at a map?

Last time I looked Iran was in the Middle-East, not Africa?


----------



## mudwhistle

starflight said:


> We have more than enough problems without starting another war.



This probably will start one.........


----------



## mudwhistle

Everything Obama touches seems to ether be fake or turn to shit.

This will most likely be no different.


----------



## francoHFW

Iran, youngest country ouside of Africa...duh


----------



## francoHFW

Iran didn't attack Iraq- Ay caramba- that was Saddam, Reagan's pal...great job, Pubbies.


----------



## Stephanie

Jackson said:


> Stephanie has a new thread which brings up a new question.
> 
> *Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?*
> 
> Can an Executive Order negate an existing law?
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...nts/hr2194.pdf
> 
> We need experts to weigh in here.



thank you dear, I saw that and was curious..


----------



## Jackson

mudwhistle said:


> If you like your nukes, you can keep your nukes......no really, I'm not bullshitting......



Now for those who were worried about their Healthcare... you can relax and don't give it another thought.  You can think about IRAN WITH NUKES INSTEAD...


----------



## Mojo2

velvtacheeze said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down, people...
> 
> This doesn't mean diddly-squat, in the final analysis...
> 
> This is only an interim 6-month band-aid on a much larger problem...
> 
> Best to hold-off on making any hasty judgments one way or another until next April or May...
> 
> When they start dealing with the Tough Stuff on a more permanent basis...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama administration has set a precedent of giving in.  Get Kerry and Jarrett out of there and get someone stronger in there without a daily influence of Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most Americans want a deal, and would rather put up with a nuclear Iran than a war with Iran.
> 
> Sorry, but your preferred policy of endless aggression against Iran lost at the polls in November 2012. Go be Butthurt over something else.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but your position reflects either:

Naivete 

Misinformation

Or anti-Semitic bigotry.

Or combinations of the three.

In any event, they have rendered your opinions irrelevant in this discussion.

The best you can do would be to withdraw from this thread, at least for the time being, and study.

And this time, try including some right wing sources of information or you will risk being continually spanked by Conservative posters who are routinely better informed.

Why is this true?

Because the MSM is heavily slanted to the Left and they lie and omit and spin the news to suit your emotional taste but leave your intellectual thirst for the truth unquenched.

Try giving your mental diet a heaping helping of "fair and balanced" news every day for a chance to avoid continually looking dumb and out of date as you do.

You took a few years off from posting and now you've returned to start up where you left off, eh?

You are a dinosaur.

Get current old man.

Would it be asking too much to say, 'get smart?'


----------



## mudwhistle

I remember when Obama lost the Olympics deal it seemed strange that he came up with a Nobel Peace Prize......by coincidence. 

He always feels he has to do something to counter his worst fuck ups. I had been hearing that he was on his knees to the Iranians begging for an agreement and during the shutdown they didn't even want to talk to the prick on the phone. 

Now they must have figured "Who are we Muslims to refuse a gift from Santa Claus".


----------



## Jackson

mudwhistle said:


> I remember when Obama lost the Olympics deal it seemed strange that he came up with a Nobel Peace Prize......by coincidence.
> 
> He always feels he has to do something to counter his worst fuck ups. I had been hearing that he was on his knees to the Iranians begging for an agreement and during the shutdown they didn't even want to talk to the prick on the phone.
> 
> Now they must have figured "Who are we Muslims to refuse a gift from Santa Claus".



That's too close to the truth. Okay that is for this week and Obama care.  Now what is he going to do when Dec. 1 rolls around and the website still isn't functioning....or Jan.1

Does Obama make a deal that we start making the bombs FOR IRAN?


----------



## Mojo2

francoHFW said:


> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. Sorry, hater dupes- no dumbass war for you...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you say this iranians using iraqi air space for their war in syria...sheeesh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're covert and sneaky like the GOP- who've wrecked them- but Iran hasn't actually attacked anyone in 2400 years. Youngest country outside of Africa too- about to get civilized... SORRY.
Click to expand...


Virtually every commercially produced I.E.D. that killed or maimed anyone in Iraq the past ten years or so was produced by Iran.

They are the world's leading exporter of terrorism.

So what would you call that?


----------



## Mojo2

By the way, I haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned the three American civilians the Iranians are holding prisoner?



> *U.S. official: Obama, Rouhani discussed fate of three Americans*
> By Susan Candiotti, CNN National Correspondent
> 
> updated 12:03 PM EDT, *Sat September 28, 2013*
> 
> (CNN) -- The fate of three U.S. citizens who have disappeared or been imprisoned in Iran was discussed during Friday's historic conversation between the two nations' presidents, a senior U.S. administration official said.
> 
> U.S. President Barack Obama, during his phone call with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, "noted our concern about three American citizens who have been held within Iran -- Robert Levinson, Saeed Abedini, and Amir Hekmati -- and noted our interest in seeing those Americans reunited with their families," the official said.
> 
> Two of the Americans have been tried and convicted in Iranian courts, and the whereabouts of another have been unknown for more than six years.
> 
> Here are the most recent developments in the stories of the detained U.S. citizens:



U.S. official: Obama, Rouhani discussed fate of three Americans - CNN.com


----------



## mamooth

It is interesting, how Obama got the Nobel first, and then earned it later.

Conservatives are flailing on this one. They simply don't get how small the demographic of hypermacho dickless wonders is. Most Americans don't take orders from Israel, and don't want another war. Hence, Americans overwhelmingly side with Obama here, and Republicans are going to self-destruct if they go too openly seditious here.


----------



## blackhawk

Just saw Iran's President is claiming the deal ends all sanctions against Iran the Whitehouse denies this if true the good feelings lasted almost 24 hours.


----------



## Jughead

Back in October, the Obama administration refused to negotiate with Republicans in Congress over the debt ceiling, yet at the very same time, they saw fit to negotiate with Iran, a rogue nation that openly allows Hezbollah, a terrorist organization to operate there and has threatened to destroy Israel.

How can there be any credibility left? What are our Middle East allies thinking? I'll bet Saudi Arabia is not too thrilled with this deal.

There should not have been any deal with Iran, and surely no lifting of sanctions. The U.S. and other allies had to insist that Iran stop all of it's nuclear activities, no negotiations. If not, apply more sanctions till they get the message.

Bad deal.


----------



## Jackson

Isn't that an extremely weakened position to begin a negotiation?

"noted our concern about three American citizens who have been held within Iran -- Robert Levinson, Saeed Abedini, and Amir Hekmati -- and noted our interest in seeing those Americans reunited with their families," the official said.


Wouldn't  this be more productive:  "We expect to see our citizens, Levinson, Abedini and Hekmati back in the US as a precursor of your good faith in negotiations and enjoying life with their families by a date to be set by you but before negotiations begin."  

  If we had any Iranians, we should expect to return any of them.  But of course, we don't have any hostages, lol.


----------



## BullKurtz

Mojo2 said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you referring to these 'conservatives'?  And, if you are, don't you feel rather ignorant?
> 
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source
> 
> "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
> - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
> 
> "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
> - President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
> 
> "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
> - Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
> 
> "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
> - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
> "[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
> Letter to President Clinton.
> - (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
> 
> "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
> - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
> 
> "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
> 
> "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
> - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source
> 
> "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
> -- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
> 
> "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
> 
> "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
> - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
> 
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source
> 
> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
> - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source
> 
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
> - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source
> 
> "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
> 
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source
> 
> "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
> - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE]
> 
> They changed their mind after it was obvious that the Iraq War was a mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When it became clear to me what great and wonderful outcomes might result from a successful conduct of the Invasion/War/Transition/Handover/Withdrawal, I became a big fan of GWB and supported a successful outcome in Iraq rather a sure defeat as the Dems. were (and in the media still are) pushing for.
> 
> Remember, the war could have gone either way. And but for a _few events_ it would have been seen as a big win for the Iraqi people, the American people, the Bush administration, American prestige and respect abroad, future engagements with foreign leaders, 'Conservatism', and lastly, it would have been a big win for GWB.
> 
> Yeah. The year 2000 marked a turning point. The election and the recount brought out the worst in the passionate, impulsive, out of control Liberals and Leftists.
> 
> And those passions have sometimes turned to hatred and it has become a movement and it has only spread and grown hotter since then.
> 
> Bottom line: I changed my mind after I saw what a great thing COULD have resulted if everyone involved was working towards victory.
> 
> And there are STILL a whole crap load of Libs and Lefts who would have PREFERRED we'd lost and left Iraq in disgrace.
Click to expand...


We bagged and tagged almost 15,000 hardcore AQ and lesser known jihadists in Iraq.  When Dubya said "bring it on" he was saying come fight our military instead of murdering our office workers you chickenshits.  And they came into Iraq and got dirt napped.  We let the sunni arabs see what life under AQ would be like and they FREAKED and listened when Petraeus told them to join us or die like the rest.  They joined, became the "Sons of Iraq", began "The Awakening" and murdered AQ until they ran back into Syria like the gutless cowards they are.

Was the invasion perfect?  We breached the berm from Kuwait into Iraq with barely a pause. The run to Baghdad was almost perfect.  We lost 153 KIA in the fastest moving operation of that magnitude in the history of modern warfare.  Iraqi aircraft never left the ground other than to escape into Iran.  Saddam's radar was blinded.  His RG fought us, his regular troops ran home.  We arrived in Baghdad with little remaining resistance.  So far, so good.  Then it went south.  

Rumsfeld should have told the Turks the same thing Dubya told the Pakistanis before we went into Afghanistan.  Do your part and support the invasion or we'll carpet-bomb your crummy country.  The Pakis didn't hestiate.  The Turks reneged on their promise to have 4th ID stage and invade down through the sunni-triangle.  Rummy greenlighted the invasion without them....and there in the sunni-triangle the resistance was born.  The ammo dumps were raided, ordinance stolen, and the artillery shells that had laid gathering dust for years were now placed on roadsides with cell-phone detonators.

Still, after the SURGE, the resistance was falling apart....Sadr fled into Iran...after we got Zarqawi they had no spirtual leader, and certainly no leader with enough military experience to coordinate the withering resistance.  At the end, they gave up.

We won the Iraq War.  Anybody saying we didn't simply doesn't matter.


----------



## Jackson

blackhawk said:


> Just saw Iran's President is claiming the deal ends all sanctions against Iran the Whitehouse denies this if true the good feelings lasted almost 24 hours.




Is this your post?


Just saw Iran's President is claiming the deal ends all sanctions against Iran.   The Whitehouse denies this.   If true, the good feelings lasted almost 24 hours.


----------



## R.C. Christian

mamooth said:


> It is interesting, how Obama got the Nobel first, and then earned it later.
> 
> Conservatives are flailing on this one. They simply don't get how small the demographic of hypermacho dickless wonders is. Most Americans don't take orders from Israel, and don't want another war. Hence, Americans overwhelmingly side with Obama here, and Republicans are going to self-destruct if they go too openly seditious here.



Dear God, another one. That rock you people live under must be large.


----------



## Bloodrock44

R.C. Christian said:


> I would love to see Israel go rogue. I'd laugh my ass off.



They have already reserved the right to attack.


----------



## Political Junky

What critics are getting wrong about the Iran deal ? Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs

If you&#8217;re trying to decide what to think about the deal struck between the major powers and Iran yesterday in Geneva, here&#8217;s a suggestion &#8211; imagine what would have happened if there had been no deal.
In fact, one doesn&#8217;t have to use much imagination.* In 2003, Iran approached the United States with an offer to talk about its nuclear program. The George W. Bush administration rejected the offer* because it believed that the Iranian regime was weak, had been battered by sanctions, and would either capitulate or collapse if Washington just stayed tough.
So there was no deal. What was the result? *Iran had 164 centrifuges operating in 2003; today it has 19,000 centrifuges.* Had the Geneva talks with Iran broken down, Iran would have continued expanding its nuclear program. Yes they are now under tough sanctions, but they were under sanctions then as well.
<more>


----------



## Jackson

BullKurtzUSMC said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/SIZE]
> 
> They changed their mind after it was obvious that the Iraq War was a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When it became clear to me what great and wonderful outcomes might result from a successful conduct of the Invasion/War/Transition/Handover/Withdrawal, I became a big fan of GWB and supported a successful outcome in Iraq rather a sure defeat as the Dems. were (and in the media still are) pushing for.
> 
> Remember, the war could have gone either way. And but for a _few events_ it would have been seen as a big win for the Iraqi people, the American people, the Bush administration, American prestige and respect abroad, future engagements with foreign leaders, 'Conservatism', and lastly, it would have been a big win for GWB.
> 
> Yeah. The year 2000 marked a turning point. The election and the recount brought out the worst in the passionate, impulsive, out of control Liberals and Leftists.
> 
> And those passions have sometimes turned to hatred and it has become a movement and it has only spread and grown hotter since then.
> 
> Bottom line: I changed my mind after I saw what a great thing COULD have resulted if everyone involved was working towards victory.
> 
> And there are STILL a whole crap load of Libs and Lefts who would have PREFERRED we'd lost and left Iraq in disgrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We bagged and tagged almost 15,000 hardcore AQ and lesser known jihadists in Iraq.  When Dubya said "bring it on" he was saying come fight our military instead of murdering our office workers you chickenshits.  And they came into Iraq and got dirt napped.  We let the sunni arabs see what life under AQ would be like and they FREAKED and listened when Patraeus told them to join us or die like the rest.  They joined, became the "Sons of Iraq", began "The Awakening" and murdered AQ until they ran back into Syria like the gutless cowards they are.
> 
> Was the invasion perfect?  We breached the berm from Kuwait into Iraq with barely a pause. The run to Baghdad was almost perfect.  We lost 153 KIA in the fastest moving operation of that magnitude in the history of modern warfare.  Iraqi aircraft never left the ground other than to escape into Iran.  Saddam's radar was blinded.  His RG fought us, his regular troops ran home.  We arrived in Baghdad with little remaining resistance.  So far, so good.  Then it went south.
> 
> Rumsfeld should have told the Turks the same thing Dubya told the Pakistanis before we went into Afghanistan.  Do your part and support the invasion or we'll carpet-bomb your crummy country.  The Pakis didn't hestiate.  The Turks reneged on their promise to have 4th ID stage and invade down through the sunni-triangle.  Rummy greenlighted the invasion without them....and there in the sunni-triangle the resistance was born.  The ammo dumps were raided, ordinance stolen, and the artillery shells that had laid gathering dust for years were now placed on roadsides with cell-phone detonators.
> 
> Still, after the SURGE, the resistance was falling apart....after we got Zarqawi they had no spirtual leader, and certainly no leader with enough military experience to coordinate the withering resistance.  At the end, they gave up.
> 
> We won the Iraq War.  Anybody saying we didn't simply doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


I saw GWB meet with the soldiers often during the war and he was always well received.  One could tell he was genuinely respected as the CIC.  I respected him as the President then and today I remember him as the {President fondly.  Thank you for your heroic service and bravery!


----------



## Geaux4it

mudwhistle said:


> I figured that Obama would come up with something to remove the Obamacare headlines and this appears to be his latest attempt.
> 
> *Obama claims to have a deal with Iran to halt their nuke production.*
> 
> John Kerry says this is just the beginning. Where have we heard this before.
> 
> Unfortunately nothing Obama does can be trusted. In his desperation to change the subject and it appears that contrary to the objections of every country in the region, Obama has made this conditional agreement without taking anyone else's advice. Kerry says that this only locks their program where it is today. He claims we will be allowed to monitor everything.
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> This is yet another political move that means jack shit. They are of the belief that something is better than nothing.
> 
> Well, this is all about nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Obama Administration, eagerly seeking a deal on Iran&#8217;s nuclear program, is now signaling that it will ease the sanctions that finally forced Tehran to the negotiating table.
> 
> On Thursday, White House press secretary Jay Carney said that the Obama Administration is considering the easing of some sanctions to further advance negotiations with Tehran.
> 
> In fact, the White House has already chosen to lighten Iran&#8217;s sanctions burden by slowing the implementation of existing sanctions and delaying congressional legislation that would impose new sanctions. Eli Lake and Josh Rogin reported in today&#8217;s Daily Beast that the Administration began softening sanctions* after the June election of Hassan Rouhani* by slowing the pace of designating Iranian front companies, individuals, ships, and aircraft as sanctions violators.
> 
> The Administration has also lobbied Congress to postpone any new sanctions to avoid disrupting the current round of negotiations with Iran. But this is a gross misreading of the situation. The prospect of new sanctions would enhance American bargaining leverage with Iran and increase the chances that an acceptable agreement can be negotiated with the recalcitrant regime in Tehran.​
> Iran Gains Sanctions Relief from the Obama Administration | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation



Of course Odumbo caved into Iran. He needs anything he can to try to get Americas eye off the ball, re: Obamacarefail.

Not to mention he hates Israel and just threw them under his Muslim brothers bus. Just like he let Stevens killers get away with murder. Obama supports Muslim terrorism

Smoke em if you got em

-Geaux


----------



## Geaux4it

I mean what I say, no nukes in Iran

-Geaux

[youtube]JUtcFGdVecI[/youtube]


----------



## mamooth

You loons understand that the deal prevents an Iranian bomb, right?

Did you even bother to look at it? Or were you too busy hyperventilating and stroking yourselves at the thought of a war?


----------



## Geaux4it

mamooth said:


> You loons understand that the deal prevents an Iranian bomb, right?
> 
> Did you even bother to look at it? Or were you too busy hyperventilating and stroking yourselves at the thought of a war?



It doesn't prevent dick.

-Geaux


----------



## BullKurtz

Jackson said:


> BullKurtzUSMC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it became clear to me what great and wonderful outcomes might result from a successful conduct of the Invasion/War/Transition/Handover/Withdrawal, I became a big fan of GWB and supported a successful outcome in Iraq rather a sure defeat as the Dems. were (and in the media still are) pushing for.
> 
> Remember, the war could have gone either way. And but for a _few events_ it would have been seen as a big win for the Iraqi people, the American people, the Bush administration, American prestige and respect abroad, future engagements with foreign leaders, 'Conservatism', and lastly, it would have been a big win for GWB.
> 
> Yeah. The year 2000 marked a turning point. The election and the recount brought out the worst in the passionate, impulsive, out of control Liberals and Leftists.
> 
> And those passions have sometimes turned to hatred and it has become a movement and it has only spread and grown hotter since then.
> 
> Bottom line: I changed my mind after I saw what a great thing COULD have resulted if everyone involved was working towards victory.
> 
> And there are STILL a whole crap load of Libs and Lefts who would have PREFERRED we'd lost and left Iraq in disgrace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We bagged and tagged almost 15,000 hardcore AQ and lesser known jihadists in Iraq.  When Dubya said "bring it on" he was saying come fight our military instead of murdering our office workers you chickenshits.  And they came into Iraq and got dirt napped.  We let the sunni arabs see what life under AQ would be like and they FREAKED and listened when Patraeus told them to join us or die like the rest.  They joined, became the "Sons of Iraq", began "The Awakening" and murdered AQ until they ran back into Syria like the gutless cowards they are.
> 
> Was the invasion perfect?  We breached the berm from Kuwait into Iraq with barely a pause. The run to Baghdad was almost perfect.  We lost 153 KIA in the fastest moving operation of that magnitude in the history of modern warfare.  Iraqi aircraft never left the ground other than to escape into Iran.  Saddam's radar was blinded.  His RG fought us, his regular troops ran home.  We arrived in Baghdad with little remaining resistance.  So far, so good.  Then it went south.
> 
> Rumsfeld should have told the Turks the same thing Dubya told the Pakistanis before we went into Afghanistan.  Do your part and support the invasion or we'll carpet-bomb your crummy country.  The Pakis didn't hestiate.  The Turks reneged on their promise to have 4th ID stage and invade down through the sunni-triangle.  Rummy greenlighted the invasion without them....and there in the sunni-triangle the resistance was born.  The ammo dumps were raided, ordinance stolen, and the artillery shells that had laid gathering dust for years were now placed on roadsides with cell-phone detonators.
> 
> Still, after the SURGE, the resistance was falling apart....after we got Zarqawi they had no spirtual leader, and certainly no leader with enough military experience to coordinate the withering resistance.  At the end, they gave up.
> 
> We won the Iraq War.  Anybody saying we didn't simply doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I saw GWB meet with the soldiers often during the war and he was always well received.  One could tell he was genuinely respected as the CIC.  I respected him as the President then and today I remember him as the {President fondly.  Thank you for your heroic service and bravery!
Click to expand...


You're welcome Sir, but I was a little long in the tooth for Iraq....I served in Vietnam.


----------



## Steve_McGarrett

Peace In Our Time!


----------



## Jackson

BullKurtzUSMC said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BullKurtzUSMC said:
> 
> 
> 
> We bagged and tagged almost 15,000 hardcore AQ and lesser known jihadists in Iraq.  When Dubya said "bring it on" he was saying come fight our military instead of murdering our office workers you chickenshits.  And they came into Iraq and got dirt napped.  We let the sunni arabs see what life under AQ would be like and they FREAKED and listened when Patraeus told them to join us or die like the rest.  They joined, became the "Sons of Iraq", began "The Awakening" and murdered AQ until they ran back into Syria like the gutless cowards they are.
> 
> Was the invasion perfect?  We breached the berm from Kuwait into Iraq with barely a pause. The run to Baghdad was almost perfect.  We lost 153 KIA in the fastest moving operation of that magnitude in the history of modern warfare.  Iraqi aircraft never left the ground other than to escape into Iran.  Saddam's radar was blinded.  His RG fought us, his regular troops ran home.  We arrived in Baghdad with little remaining resistance.  So far, so good.  Then it went south.
> 
> Rumsfeld should have told the Turks the same thing Dubya told the Pakistanis before we went into Afghanistan.  Do your part and support the invasion or we'll carpet-bomb your crummy country.  The Pakis didn't hestiate.  The Turks reneged on their promise to have 4th ID stage and invade down through the sunni-triangle.  Rummy greenlighted the invasion without them....and there in the sunni-triangle the resistance was born.  The ammo dumps were raided, ordinance stolen, and the artillery shells that had laid gathering dust for years were now placed on roadsides with cell-phone detonators.
> 
> Still, after the SURGE, the resistance was falling apart....after we got Zarqawi they had no spirtual leader, and certainly no leader with enough military experience to coordinate the withering resistance.  At the end, they gave up.
> 
> We won the Iraq War.  Anybody saying we didn't simply doesn't matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I saw GWB meet with the soldiers often during the war and he was always well received.  One could tell he was genuinely respected as the CIC.  I respected him as the President then and today I remember him as the {President fondly.  Thank you for your heroic service and bravery!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're welcome Sir, but I was a little long in the tooth for Iraq....I served in Vietnam.
Click to expand...


You served under pressure Sir, and you are to be commended for that.  And indeed that is for heroism and bravery and a sometimes intolerable welcome home.  Thank YOU!


----------



## mudwhistle

mamooth said:


> It is interesting, how Obama got the Nobel first, and then earned it later.
> 
> Conservatives are flailing on this one. They simply don't get how small the demographic of hypermacho dickless wonders is. Most Americans don't take orders from Israel, and don't want another war. Hence, Americans overwhelmingly side with Obama here, and Republicans are going to self-destruct if they go too openly seditious here.



Obama hasn't earned the Peace Prize. 

He murdered over 400 innocent civilians with his drone strikes, caused the start of the Arab Spring, and started wars in Syria and Libya. He's been instigating war all over the Middle-East. 

You must be a looney for sure if you don't know this.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

R.C. Christian said:


> I would love to see Israel go rogue. I'd laugh my ass off.



I would _love_ to _see_ Netanyahu's tears of rage.


----------



## Trajan

Jackson said:


> Stephanie has a new thread which brings up a new question.
> 
> *Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?*
> 
> Can an Executive Order negate an existing law?
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...nts/hr2194.pdf
> 
> We need experts to weigh in here.



thats very interesting, does he need senate approval, to approve of this deal is the question, if so, he'll make it appear like peace in our time and if the gop opposes it, he has an issue for a news cycle to keep obamcare off the front pages which knowing how this admin works may be exactly why hes doing this. And anyway, hes just bagged 214 years of law anyway, so if he can he will skirt congress and harry will let him. 

IF enrichment is allowed to continue an arak is not put in serious mothballs this is not good, at all. 

and for some of the others here, what happened to let the sanctions do the work? IF Iran is this desperate, becasue of sanctions, then drive a better deal,  giving them money up front for promises is ridiculous, if they get what I am reading about, $ 70 -80 bn hard cash this is equal to their entire one years oil sales, and could take them over the top, they promise like crazy like Saddam did, do the 2 step back and forth with the UN, IO mean we have seen this before,  and as it takes a long time to get the sanctions BACK into place/effect and wham, they are there. Checkmate.


----------



## QuickHitCurepon

mamooth said:


> You loons understand that the deal prevents an Iranian bomb, right?
> 
> Did you even bother to look at it? Or were you too busy hyperventilating and stroking yourselves at the thought of a war?





We couldn't even verify what hapless Iraq and Saddam Hussein were doing, while sending in U.N. Inspectors. How can we verify what happens in a vastly more complex society and government in Iran? It's virtually impossible.


----------



## velvtacheeze

Geaux4it said:


> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allowing Iran to go nuclear is like allowing Charles Manson to go nuclear.
> 
> They can close down oil production in the region within hours and start a war the will inflame our terrible relations with Russia even further.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Iran want to start a war? Why would they want to close down oil production?  They would have nothing to gain from it.  You wingers have gone INSANE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I don't know, maybe because they have threatened to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> Jus sayin
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


We have irresponsible politicians that call for destroying Iran, so we have no room to judge.


----------



## Kondor3

velvtacheeze said:


> "..._We have irresponsible politicians that call for destroying Iran, so we have no room to judge._"


Oh, puh-leeeeze!


----------



## Stephanie

Trajan said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie has a new thread which brings up a new question.
> 
> *Is Obama violating the law: Iran Sanctions Act passed by Congress and signed by him in 2010?*
> 
> Can an Executive Order negate an existing law?
> 
> http://www.treasury.gov/resource-cen...nts/hr2194.pdf
> 
> We need experts to weigh in here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thats very interesting, does he need senate approval, to approve of this deal is the question, if so, he'll make it appear like peace in our time and if the gop opposes it, he has an issue for a news cycle to keep obamcare off the front pages which knowing how this admin works may be exactly why hes doing this. And anyway, hes just bagged 214 years of law anyway, so if he can he will skirt congress and harry will let him.
> 
> IF enrichment is allowed to continue an arak is not put in serious mothballs this is not good, at all.
> 
> and for some of the others here, what happened to let the sanctions do the work? IF Iran is this desperate, becasue of sanctions, then drive a better deal,  giving them money up front for promises is ridiculous, if they get what I am reading about, $ 70 -80 bn hard cash this is equal to their entire one years oil sales, and could take them over the top, they promise like crazy like Saddam did, do the 2 step back and forth with the UN, IO mean we have seen this before,  and as it takes a long time to get the sanctions BACK into place/effect and wham, they are there. Checkmate.
Click to expand...


thanks dear, I saw that posted at another site and was curious about it


----------



## francoHFW

Mojo2 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tyroneweaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you say this iranians using iraqi air space for their war in syria...sheeesh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're covert and sneaky like the GOP- who've wrecked them- but Iran hasn't actually attacked anyone in 2400 years. Youngest country outside of Africa too- about to get civilized... SORRY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Virtually every commercially produced I.E.D. that killed or maimed anyone in Iraq the past ten years or so was produced by Iran.
> 
> They are the world's leading exporter of terrorism.
> 
> So what would you call that?
Click to expand...

GOP covert and sneaky- unlike Saddam killing a couple million Iranis, more like the million Irans killed by our Shah, or Mossedah being oyerthrown by the CIA...


----------



## R.C. Christian

Bloodrock44 said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would love to see Israel go rogue. I'd laugh my ass off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have already reserved the right to attack.
Click to expand...


I know, but an attack guarantees that Iran actually will upgrade that Uranium to 80%. and they have delivery systems although I doubt they could beat Iron Dome. 

I've always maintained that Israel will probably get us all killed.


----------



## Jughead

Thankfully some countries still use good judgment.




> Canada's foreign minister says he's "deeply skeptical" about the international community's nuclear deal with Iran. Canada will keep its sanctions in place.
> 
> Foreign Minister John Baird said in Ottawa on Sunday that past actions predict future actions and "Iran has not earned the right to have the benefit of the doubt. "
> 
> Canada's Conservative government, a staunch ally of Israel, has banned nearly all exports to and imports from Iran over concerns about Iran's nuclear program. Canada also shut its embassy in Tehran in 2012 and ordered Iranian diplomats to leave Ottawa.




Canada "deeply skeptical" of international community's nuclear deal with Iran | Fox News


----------



## Flopper

FA_Q2 said:


> Capstone said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those god-durned Iranians just keep refusing to sit for the kind of portrait western warmongers want so badly to paint.
> 
> Good for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not be so sure.  Iran is not known for its honesty in nuclear negotiations.  I dont think for one second that this is going to work.  I could be wrong, I HOPE I am wrong but alas I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone knows if it will work.  Kerry actually seemed skeptical.  I guess that's why it's a 6 month deal.


----------



## AceRothstein

mudwhistle said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting, how Obama got the Nobel first, and then earned it later.
> 
> Conservatives are flailing on this one. They simply don't get how small the demographic of hypermacho dickless wonders is. Most Americans don't take orders from Israel, and don't want another war. Hence, Americans overwhelmingly side with Obama here, and Republicans are going to self-destruct if they go too openly seditious here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama hasn't earned the Peace Prize.
> 
> He murdered over 400 innocent civilians with his drone strikes, caused the start of the Arab Spring, and started wars in Syria and Libya. He's been instigating war all over the Middle-East.
> 
> You must be a looney for sure if you don't know this.
Click to expand...


The President of the United States doesn't have close to the amount of power as you claim.


----------



## HenryBHough

AceRothstein said:


> The President of the United States doesn't have close to the amount of power as you claim.



You know it.

I know it.

But please don't tell Him 'cause he'd never believe you and, if he did, would be reduced to a quivering, nay, OOZING mass of warm Jello Brand gelatin dessert, giving the product a bad rep.


----------



## Geaux4it

What this allows is for Iran to continue to enrich Uranium, while bringing in all kinds of $$$ to continue to work at killing our troops. Furthermore, it opens the door for China and Russia to continue to help Iran obtain Nukes.

What could go wrong?

Odumbo and Herman Munster Kerry are fools

-Geaux


----------



## mudwhistle

velvtacheeze said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> velvtacheeze said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Iran want to start a war? Why would they want to close down oil production?  They would have nothing to gain from it.  You wingers have gone INSANE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I don't know, maybe because they have threatened to wipe Israel off the map?
> 
> Jus sayin
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have irresponsible politicians that call for destroying Iran, so we have no room to judge.
Click to expand...


Who is calling for destroying Iran?

BTW, Iran has been murdering our citizens since 1979. Why the all the tears for an enemy?


----------



## Kondor3

mudwhistle said:


> "..._BTW, Iran has been murdering our citizens since 1979. *Why the all the tears for an enemy?*_"


Standard fare for America Last-ers...


----------



## mamooth

So are there any conservatives here other than R.C. who aren't loyal to Israel over the USA? It sure doesn't appear that way.

This illustrates how big of a bullet the USA dodged by rejecting "Israel First!" Romney, who would have appointed Netanyahu as the US Secretary of State.


----------



## Flopper

Geaux4it said:


> What this allows is for Iran to continue to enrich Uranium, while bringing in all kinds of $$$ to continue to work at killing our troops. Furthermore, it opens the door for China and Russia to continue to help Iran obtain Nukes.
> 
> What could go wrong?
> 
> Odumbo and Herman Munster Kerry are fools
> 
> -Geaux


Obviously, doing what we have done for over 10 years is not working, better to try a new plan for 6 months than continue down the same road.


----------



## Uncensored2008

KEWL

So Iran, which claims to have no nuclear program, agreed to limit the nuclear program if the West stops sanctions.

And president shitferbrains declares it a breakthrough.....


----------



## mudwhistle

Uncensored2008 said:


> KEWL
> 
> So Iran, which claims to have no nuclear program, agreed to limit the nuclear program if the West stops sanctions.
> 
> And president shitferbrains declares it a breakthrough.....



He needed some headlines his sheeple could hold onto....


----------



## mudwhistle

Uncensored2008 said:


> KEWL
> 
> So Iran, which claims to have no nuclear program, agreed to limit the nuclear program if the West stops sanctions.
> 
> And president shitferbrains declares it a breakthrough.....



They admit they have a program, but they swear it's peaceful.

Cross your fingers, double-stamp, no erasies.


----------



## Uncensored2008

mudwhistle said:


> They admit they have a program, but they swear it's peaceful.
> 
> Cross your fingers, double-stamp, no erasies.



They claim it's a nuclear power program.


----------



## BullKurtz

Uncensored2008 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They admit they have a program, but they swear it's peaceful.
> 
> Cross your fingers, double-stamp, no erasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They claim it's a nuclear power program.
Click to expand...


Nuclear power only requires 5% enrichment....the rags have almost 500 kilos enriched to 20% which is the threshold to run it up to 80% or weapons grade.  They still won't explain why they're building a PLUTONIUM enrichment facility.


----------



## Flopper

Uncensored2008 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They admit they have a program, but they swear it's peaceful.
> 
> Cross your fingers, double-stamp, no erasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They claim it's a nuclear power program.
Click to expand...

Iran's nuclear programs dates back to 1957.


----------



## HenryBHough

Meanwhile working on assembling a stash of polonium which has but one purpose.  I do hope they hurry.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Flopper said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They admit they have a program, but they swear it's peaceful.
> 
> Cross your fingers, double-stamp, no erasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They claim it's a nuclear power program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's nuclear programs dates back to 1957.
Click to expand...


{On 8 January 2012, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said on Face the Nation that Iran was not trying to develop a nuclear weapon, but was trying to develop a nuclear capability}

Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iran claims that they only seek to fuel their reactors.

As already pointed out - it is an absurd claim.


----------



## BullKurtz

So what if they want enriched plutonium right?  WRONG.   Korea, India, and Israel all built plutonium weapons....as a matter of fact so did we.  To wit:

Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239 are the ingedients to make the BIG BANG.

The atomic weapon used to destroy Hiroshima utilized the gun-assembly design and 64 kg of HEU (? pure U235); it is considered the easiest of all nuclear devices to produce

Fat Man the atomic bomb that levelled Nagasaki used 6.2 kg of plutonium with a yield of slightly more than 20 kt according to a Department of Energy assessment.

Therefore a weapon of this magnitude can be produced with far less plutonium 239 although it takes much longer to produce.


Plutonium is an element created as a by product of uranium powered reactors. It must be extracted from irradiated reactor fuel. Much like the Dimona reactor in Israel, with some differences, North Koreas graphite moderated reactor is likely a plutonium source. 

Obtaining plutonium is possible through a variety of reactor designs and processes. Most reactors produce plutonium, including Irans Bushehr. However it is impure; the isotope Pu239 that is necessary for a weapon and to obtain high percentages of that is more likely from a heavy water moderated reactor  like that proposed in Arak, Iran....the same type of weapon the Germans were working on at the end of WW2.


Read more: Family Security Matters Family Security Matters 
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution


----------



## velvtacheeze

Geaux4it said:


> What this allows is for Iran to continue to enrich Uranium, while bringing in all kinds of $$$ to continue to work at killing our troops. Furthermore, it opens the door for China and Russia to continue to help Iran obtain Nukes.
> 
> What could go wrong?
> 
> Odumbo and Herman Munster Kerry are fools
> 
> -Geaux



The Bushtarded years is when Iran really made progress.


----------



## Trajan

Flopper said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> They admit they have a program, but they swear it's peaceful.
> 
> Cross your fingers, double-stamp, no erasies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They claim it's a nuclear power program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Iran's nuclear programs dates back to 1957.
Click to expand...


hummmm

example-

2003-

Aug. 26  IAEA inspectors found traces of highly enriched uranium at Iran's Natanz nuclear plant. Iran claimed the traces came from equipment imported from another country.

Sept. 19  President Khatami said, "We don't need atomic bombs, and based on our religious teaching, we will not pursue them...but at the same time, we want to be strong, and being strong means having knowledge and technology."

Sept. 25  U.N. weapons inspectors found traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium at a second site near the capital city of Tehran. The IAEA set a deadline of Oct. 31 for Iran to prove it was not making nuclear weapons. 

you know who was the Iranian Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council during this stretch?



Rouhani.......


----------



## Trajan

Kim Il Jong bilked clinton suckered bush and ..? now? don't we ever learn?


----------

