# Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!



## Statistikhengst

Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View




> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.





> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.




Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.

So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.

Back to the Bloomberg link:



> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.



The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Cool....  !!!!


----------



## Iceweasel

Thank God! We've been without a president for a long while. obama should just go back to community agitating on street corners, it's all he knows how to do.


----------



## Statistikhengst

In from CNN:

GOP senators warn Iranian leaders on deal - CNN.com



> Sens. Jeff Flake, Lisa Murkowski, Lamar Alexander, Dan Coats, Thad Cochran, Susan Collins and Bob Corker didn't sign the letter. Murkowski and Coats are the only two up for reelection, and Coats is rumored to be considering retirement.


----------



## Jarhead

We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
"negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.


----------



## AceRothstein

Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.


----------



## g5000

Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets. 

 You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

g5000 said:


> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.



Somebody has to neutralize that clueless nitwit Obama...


----------



## Manonthestreet

Iran just declared Baghdad its capital of their empire.


----------



## Jarhead

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.


That's a matter of opinion.

Negotiating with a country like Iran, to me, is treason. They have proven over and over that they are not to be trusted...so for the US to sign a "promise' based on the promise of Iran is foolish and will hand tie the US while Iran will continues to do as they please.

Hey, if you trust the signature of Iran...go for it.

Most don't.


----------



## Iceweasel

AceRothstein said:


> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.


No, we didn't need to go to war with the USSR but liberals want nothing more than to solve the problem with hope and change.


----------



## Jarhead

AceRothstein said:


> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.


Talking point...likely because you have nothing else to say.

Republicans are realists in this case. They know dam well an agreement made by Iran wont be worth the paper it is written on....but the signature of a US President would force the US to abide by the terms.

No gain whatsoever.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Concrete proof of what I've said for a long time now - they want to destroy the US. Repubs work to weaken the strength and position of the US on the world stage.

Once and for all, this proves their hatred has nothing at all to do with the Obama presidency. Its the entire country they want to bring down.


----------



## NLT

AceRothstein said:


> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.


Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.


----------



## Statistikhengst

g5000 said:


> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.




Damn, you are GOOD. I was going to mention the Jay Treaty but then I thought to myself, no one would know anything about it. Not to mention that we go so far back in time, political parties had not yet formed and the many traditions surrounding governance in the USA had not yet been set into place:

Jay Treaty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Bravo, g5000


----------



## JakeStarkey

An overwhelming number of the GOP Senate engages in a violation of separation of powers, and we have neoclowns applauding them.

No, you missile freaks, we are not going to war with Iran.


----------



## Jarhead

Iceweasel said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we didn't need to go to war with the USSR but liberals want nothing more than to solve the problem with hope and change.
Click to expand...

Obama has been found to be blind with what is going on throughout the world. He allows his ideology cloud him from reality.

"Be nice to them, and they will be nice to us"....sure, it sounds good, but in real life? Meaningless.

Al quaeda on the run
ISIS is a JV team
The Muslim Brotherhood is change for the better
Yemen is a success story
The Arab Spring was a good thing
A video prompted the attack
All is reset with Russia


----------



## Jarhead

JakeStarkey said:


> An overwhelming number of the GOP Senate engages in a violation of separation of powers, and we have neoclowns applauding them.
> 
> No, you missile freaks, we are not going to war with Iran.


seems only the liberals are saying that.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Cool....  !!!!



 My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Desperado

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.


No that is not the GOP for you, that is the treasonous Neocon contingent putting their love for Israel before the United States again.


----------



## AceRothstein

Reagan negotiated with Iran before he was president.  According to the Republicans, Obama isn't allowed to negotiate with Iran while president.


----------



## ClosedCaption

Are you surprised?  Anyone enemy or friend that disagrees with Obama is their new fav person.

When you go from Putin, to King Abdullah to Bibi and now this crap

Republicans sure do love America


----------



## HereWeGoAgain

Iceweasel said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we didn't need to go to war with the USSR but liberals want nothing more than to solve the problem with hope and change.
Click to expand...


  To bad obama is a kenyen...he would have made a perfect frenchman.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Imagine the difficulties that Tom Cotton (R-Tee Potty, AR) must have had in penning that letter.

First, he was forced to put his Tea Party crayola crayons away and pick up a big-boy pen.

Second, he had to restart the letter three times, cuz "Dear Ragheads" or "Dear Jihadi Dickhead" just didn't sound right.

Third, he had to cancel his secret meeting with his gay lover. That really pissed him off.

Fourth, he was unsure how much postage it would cost...

I guess this is Tom Cotton's way of trying to jump onto the national stage. Maybe he will announce for president 2016 next week...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

There are some on the right who are now open traitors. They don't even bother to hide it anymore.


----------



## JohnAdams

Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants. God Bless the USA!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Luddly Neddite said:


> There are some on the right who are now open traitors. They don't even bother to hide it anymore.




Best kept non-secret in DC.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


Spot on! 

The biggest lie ever perpetrated on the American people was promulgated by the Republican Party, to wit:  "America First".


----------



## LordBrownTrout

g5000 said:


> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.



No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.


----------



## Wry Catcher

LordBrownTrout said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
Click to expand...


Explain why in detail!  Or prove you're nothing more than a parrot, and echoing right wing propaganda.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Wry Catcher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain why in detail!  Or prove you're nothing more than a parrot, and echoing right wing propaganda.
Click to expand...



There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities.  If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Russia will support Iran, yes, but that does not mean we need to go to war with Iran to keep them from getting nukes.  The sanctions are never going to be let up much if they don't back down verifiably.  The people will overthrow the Ayatollahs if the sanctions stay in place.  The Iranian leadership knows that.


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

The Repubs EXTREME partisanship has pushed them over the edge


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JakeStarkey said:


> Russia will support Iran, yes, but that does not mean we need to go to war with Iran to keep them from getting nukes.  The sanctions are never going to be let up much if they don't back down verifiably.  The people will overthrow the Ayatollahs if the sanctions stay in place.  The Iranian leadership knows that.




You're living in fantasy world if you think the people of iran are going to overthrow the ayatollahs.  They had their chance a few years ago to change leadership and they couldn't even do that.


----------



## Dot Com

AceRothstein said:


> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.


yep. Sending more people's kids off to fight their boogeymen like they did in vietraq


----------



## JakeStarkey

LordBrownTrout said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia will support Iran, yes, but that does not mean we need to go to war with Iran to keep them from getting nukes.  The sanctions are never going to be let up much if they don't back down verifiably.  The people will overthrow the Ayatollahs if the sanctions stay in place.  The Iranian leadership knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> You're living in fantasy world if you think the people of iran are going to overthrow the ayatollahs.  They had their chance a few years ago to change leadership and they couldn't even do that.
Click to expand...

You are Fantasy Boy, my friend.  That was 2009 and it is six hard years later.  The screws will only get tighter on the Iranians.  The real fantasy is that you would think that we would go to far with Iran.  Our military chiefs have already told POTUS and Congress behind closed doors that is a no go.


----------



## Wry Catcher

LordBrownTrout said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain why in detail!  Or prove you're nothing more than a parrot, and echoing right wing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities.  If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.
Click to expand...


Of course there's no detail, you are simply a parrot; realpolitik is at play, not religion nor ideology.  

Do some homework and consider how the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline might force Russian and Iranian cooperation.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Wry Catcher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain why in detail!  Or prove you're nothing more than a parrot, and echoing right wing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities.  If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's no detail, you are simply a parrot; realpolitik is at play, not religion nor ideology.
> 
> Do some homework and consider how the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline might force Russian and Iranian cooperation.
Click to expand...

That would require hard thinking for LBT.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

JakeStarkey said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia will support Iran, yes, but that does not mean we need to go to war with Iran to keep them from getting nukes.  The sanctions are never going to be let up much if they don't back down verifiably.  The people will overthrow the Ayatollahs if the sanctions stay in place.  The Iranian leadership knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> You're living in fantasy world if you think the people of iran are going to overthrow the ayatollahs.  They had their chance a few years ago to change leadership and they couldn't even do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are Fantasy Boy, my friend.  That was 2009 and it is six hard years later.  The screws will only get tighter on the Iranians.  The real fantasy is that you would think that we would go to far with Iran.  Our military chiefs have already told POTUS and Congress behind closed doors that is a no go.
Click to expand...



Not at all, fantasy girl.  I'm talking about the nadless people who blew their chance to change govt and wouldn't even do it now.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Statistikhengst said:


> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.


Close enough for government work and note to Iran, don't deal, just build.  Americans and Israelis are not people to be trusted, obviously.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Wry Catcher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain why in detail!  Or prove you're nothing more than a parrot, and echoing right wing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities.  If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's no detail, you are simply a parrot; realpolitik is at play, not religion nor ideology.
> 
> Do some homework and consider how the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline might force Russian and Iranian cooperation.
Click to expand...


I already have but you'll carry on with your hackery and inability to understand oil/nat gas ministries in the region along with israel's natural gas fields.


----------



## jillian

Iceweasel said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we didn't need to go to war with the USSR but liberals want nothing more than to solve the problem with hope and change.
Click to expand...


Examples please. 

Oh wait. You have none


----------



## Moonglow

g5000 said:


> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.


It is not just that, but it makes the US look splintered and weak....


----------



## Moonglow

Manonthestreet said:


> Iran just declared Baghdad its capital of their empire.


Link?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Moonglow said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not just that, but it makes the US look splintered and weak....
Click to expand...

It makes us look like a country of assholes and fools, exactly what we are.


----------



## Dot Com

PaintMyHouse said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not just that, but it makes the US look splintered and weak....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes us look like a country of assholes and fools, exactly what we are.
Click to expand...

as long as people keep voting-in puppets from the two entrenched & corrupt parties, it will remain that way.


----------



## Moonglow

PaintMyHouse said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not just that, but it makes the US look splintered and weak....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes us look like a country of assholes and fools, exactly what we are.
Click to expand...

Why should we be any different than all the rest of the humans....??


----------



## Camp

If 47 Iranian officials had written a letter like that there would be 47 executed Iranian officials hanging from lamp post in downtown Tehran.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Moonglow said:


> Why should we be any different than all the rest of the humans....??


Because we keep saying we are, and we aren't, which makes us worse.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Camp said:


> If 47 Iranian officials had written a letter like that there would be 47 executed Iranian officials hanging from lamp post in downtown Tehran.


Tempting.  Treason can be a hanging offense, and there are lots of tall objects in DC.


----------



## Moonglow

PaintMyHouse said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we be any different than all the rest of the humans....??
> 
> 
> 
> Because we keep saying we are, and we aren't, which makes us worse.
Click to expand...

I saw that lie when I was a kid and dropped out of the nationalism race....


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> An overwhelming number of the GOP Senate engages in a violation of separation of powers, and we have neoclowns applauding them.
> 
> No, you missile freaks, we are not going to war with Iran.


I don't believe anyone supporting this has any future right to say they support following the Constitution.


----------



## BULLDOG

NLT said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
Click to expand...



Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?


----------



## SuperDemocrat

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with that because we must support any interpretation that gives the president more power.   I know the constitution says that the president has dictatorial power and can do anything he wants.   This makes me wonder why did we go through and have the treaty that ended ww2 voted on by the congress.   Silly conservatives.  They don't know history


----------



## PaintMyHouse

SuperDemocrat said:


> I totally agree with that because we must support any interpretation that gives the president more power.   I know the constitution says that the president has dictatorial power and can do anything he wants.   This makes me wonder why did we go through and have the treaty that ended ww2 voted on by the congress.   Silly conservatives.  They don't know history


When we end the war with Iran, we'll let the Congress vote.


----------



## Jarhead

BULLDOG said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
Click to expand...

"Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?

Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.

And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.

Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.

When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.


----------



## Statistikhengst

SuperDemocrat said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally agree with that because we must support any interpretation that gives the president more power.   I know the constitution says that the president has dictatorial power and can do anything he wants.   This makes me wonder why did we go through and have the treaty that ended ww2 voted on by the congress.   Silly conservatives.  They don't know history
Click to expand...



Uhhhhh, you are who???


----------



## PaintMyHouse

RetiredGySgt said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
Click to expand...

Didn't know we were working on a Treaty?  Did you?


----------



## Statistikhengst

RetiredGySgt said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
Click to expand...


You reqally didn''t read the OP, now did you.... you might want to go to the Senate website and read it for yourself.


----------



## Katzndogz

It was a wise move.  The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.

There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws.  It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.


----------



## Wry Catcher

LordBrownTrout said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain why in detail!  Or prove you're nothing more than a parrot, and echoing right wing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities.  If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's no detail, you are simply a parrot; realpolitik is at play, not religion nor ideology.
> 
> Do some homework and consider how the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline might force Russian and Iranian cooperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have but you'll carry on with your hackery and inability to understand oil/nat gas ministries in the region along with israel's natural gas fields.
Click to expand...


Thank you.  I'm so impressed with your ability to post nothing of substance and nothing to suggest critical thought.  A skill well honed by your side of the aisle.


----------



## BULLDOG

Jarhead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
Click to expand...



I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?


----------



## Moonglow

BULLDOG said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
Click to expand...

Fortunately Congress can't force a war...


----------



## Political Junky

Hopefully this will come back to bite those GOP Senators in the ass.


----------



## Katzndogz

BULLDOG said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify.   Your understanding is that we either agree to let Iran go to war with nuclear weapons or they will choose to go to war now to get nuclear weapons.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Political Junky said:


> Hopefully this will come back to bite those GOP Senators in the ass.


It will. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## iamwhatiseem

No Stat...if Bush did something like what Obama is doing - ALL of you guys would be screaming bloody murder.
  President Obama no way, no how should be making any deals as important as this without Congress. That is absolutely stupid. We are not Venezuela. 
You might remember something called the Revolutionary War that was fought to remove ourselves from Monarchical governance.


----------



## BULLDOG

Moonglow said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
Click to expand...



If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Statistikhengst said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You reqally didn''t read the OP, now did you.... you might want to go to the Senate website and read it for yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't need to read the Senate site the simple fact is the President does not have the authority without the consent of Congress to create a binding agreement. And you know it, this is another example of you trying to play word games to imply something that simply is not true.

Or are you actually claiming that the President can make a deal with Iran without the consent of Congress?


----------



## Political Junky

BULLDOG said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
Click to expand...

I think those 47 senators are hoping for that.


----------



## JakeStarkey

RetiredGySgt said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
Click to expand...


We are all well are of that, jarhead.  However, this move by the GOP Senators will bounce back badly against the party  We had to give in on ACA, on EO, on the budget, now we are demonstrating that the GOP has no proper sense of balance in governance.

The American people are not going to go wild for this idiotic move.


----------



## Jarhead

BULLDOG said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
Click to expand...

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?


----------



## Katzndogz

If Iran wants to go to war over whether or not obama will be their bitch it's their choice.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tipsycatlover said:


> It was a wise move.  The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws.  It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.


The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If the United States electorate even suspect a Republican President and Congress are intending to go to war with Iran, the entire American national government will be blue in the white house and the capitol.


----------



## Jarhead

JakeStarkey said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are all well are of that, jarhead.  However, this move by the GOP Senators will bounce back badly against the party  We had to give in on ACA, on EO, on the budget, now we are demonstrating that the GOP has no proper sense of balance in governance.
> 
> The American people are not going to go wild for this idiotic move.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting how you make it a one sided thing.

Nothing the President has done has proven to be "one sided" and without regard to the balance of governance.


----------



## Jarhead

JakeStarkey said:


> If the United States electorate even suspect a Republican President and Congress are intending to go to war with Iran, the entire American national government will be blue in the white house and the capitol.


No one in congress and no one running for President want to go to war with Iran...that is just hyperbole being spread by the opposition.

As I see it...we should pretty much tell Israel to do whatever they deem is necessary...and let nature take its course.

Negotiating with Iran will only delay the inevitable.


----------



## Statistikhengst

RetiredGySgt said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You reqally didn''t read the OP, now did you.... you might want to go to the Senate website and read it for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to read the Senate site the simple fact is the President does not have the authority without the consent of Congress to create a binding agreement. And you know it, this is another example of you trying to play word games to imply something that simply is not true.
> 
> Or are you actually claiming that the President can make a deal with Iran without the consent of Congress?
Click to expand...

You really DO need to read the OP. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## JakeStarkey

I am saying that the GOP is once again obstructing what they cannot stop.  They have tried it before.  Now 47 of our Senators are saber rattling at Iran.  The American people will not accept that stupidity.


----------



## BULLDOG

Tipsycatlover said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to clarify.   Your understanding is that we either agree to let Iran go to war with nuclear weapons or they will choose to go to war now to get nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...


Now that would be stupid wouldn't it. I know that is the scenario right wing radio is pushing, but far from the truth. The president has said many times in the framework of this negotiation that a bomb is not acceptable. From my understanding, Iran claims they want nuclear power, and they intend to produce that. Centrifuges can be used for that or a bomb, but they have to be configured in different ways depending on what they want to produce. The treaty will guarantee frequent inspections to determine the configuration of those centrifuges.  Without a treaty for inspections, we will have no choice but to destroy that equipment which will cause war. With a treaty, we will immediately know if the configuration has been changed to produce material for a bomb. It takes at least a year from the time they are reconfigured until bomb material can be produced, and we can destroy it then. I wish they would sign a treaty fo more than ten years, but ten is better than nothing. Inspections are better than war.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Don't worry Statist, your letter pledging undying support for Iran and the goals of radical Islam will counter balance this...


----------



## Siete

what? you mean the Republicans didn't invite them to come and speak to congress so every voting RW'r in the country could rub one off every day for the next month ?

Nettie and Pooten' have been slighted.


----------



## Political Junky

JakeStarkey said:


> If the United States electorate even suspect a Republican President and Congress are intending to go to war with Iran, the entire American national government will be blue in the white house and the capitol.


Yep -


----------



## Katzndogz

JakeStarkey said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a wise move.  The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws.  It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.
Click to expand...

If you think this presidunce doesn't need congressional approval of this treaty you know less than everyone.


----------



## Uncensored2008

BULLDOG said:


> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.



The nuclear armed Iran that Obama seeks is not a good treaty.


----------



## boilermaker55

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
_noun_
noun: *treason*; noun: *high treason*; plural noun: *high treasons*

the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
"they were convicted of treason"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
high treason, lèse-majesté;
apostasy;
_literary_perfidy
"the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
the action of betraying someone or something.
plural noun: *treasons*
"doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
high treason, lèse-majesté;
apostasy;
_literary_perfidy
"the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
historical
the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
noun: *petty treason*; plural noun: *petty treasons*







Soggy in NOLA said:


> Cool....  !!!!


----------



## BULLDOG

Jarhead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> 
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
Click to expand...



They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.


----------



## MACAULAY

After over six years of the greatest liar we have ever had for a president...and knowing he is also a narcissist and a coward...his true motive in his bogus deal with Iran is clear to all but the willingly blind.

He hopes to get the Iranians to NOT openly declare that they have a nuclear bomb until he is well out of office...so he can blame the next president.

That's all.  And so good for the Senators for letting the lunatic Ayatollahs know we aren't all as selfish and foolish as Obama.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Tipsycatlover said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a wise move.  The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws.  It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think this presidunce doesn't need congressional approval of this treaty you know less than everyone.
Click to expand...

Thank you, and the fool immediately above, for showing us that you know nothing.


----------



## Jarhead

BULLDOG said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
Click to expand...

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.


----------



## BULLDOG

Uncensored2008 said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The nuclear armed Iran that Obama seeks is not a good treaty.
Click to expand...



Quit listening to rush. Nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran.


----------



## Jarhead

JakeStarkey said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a wise move.  The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws.  It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think this presidunce doesn't need congressional approval of this treaty you know less than everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for showing us that you know nothing.
Click to expand...

2 thirds of the senate is required to ratify a treaty...otherwise it is a personal agreement between two heads of state.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

BULLDOG said:


> Quit listening to rush. Nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran.


Almost no one.  I'm perfectly fine with it.  Nations are allowed to build weapons.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarhead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
Click to expand...

Iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon, and if they ever get that far, the Israel air force will turn those centers into nuclear holocausts.


----------



## g5000

We interrupt this program for a BROWN ALERT!  BROWN ALERT!  BROWN ALERT!  Iran is trying to build a nuke!  Shit your pants!


----------



## LoneLaugher

Given the fact that there has been no evidence put forward which proves that Iran is even seeking a nuclear weapons capability......all of this shit only serves to strengthen the hand that they have in negotiations. They would love for us to approach them as if they are days away from the bomb. It gives them leverage. 

Iran should be trying like hell to develop nuclear weapons. It is a sure fire way to ensure that we won't fuck with them. 

The leaders of Iran are not suicidal. They have as much right to develop these weapons as we do. Our arrogance is without equal.


----------



## Camp

boilermaker55 said:


> trea·son
> ˈtrēzən/
> _noun_
> noun: *treason*; noun: *high treason*; plural noun: *high treasons*
> 
> the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
> "they were convicted of treason"
> synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
> sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
> high treason, lèse-majesté;
> apostasy;
> _literary_perfidy
> "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
> antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
> the action of betraying someone or something.
> plural noun: *treasons*
> "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
> synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
> sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
> high treason, lèse-majesté;
> apostasy;
> _literary_perfidy
> "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
> antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
> historical
> the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
> noun: *petty treason*; plural noun: *petty treasons*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool....  !!!!
Click to expand...


Republicans have excuses for their treason. Posters here are 'splaining them.


----------



## BULLDOG

Jarhead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
Click to expand...



I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.


----------



## Jarhead

Jarhead said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a wise move.  The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws.  It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.
> 
> 
> 
> The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think this presidunce doesn't need congressional approval of this treaty you know less than everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for showing us that you know nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 2 thirds of the senate is required to ratify a treaty...otherwise it is a personal agreement between two heads of state.
Click to expand...

The President gives the final authority as a treaty is not deemed as ratified until the president signs it (for the second time, unless he appoints a diplomat to sign it at the beginning)...but if 2/3 of the senate do not vote in favor of the treaty, it is shelved until a congress comes in willing to vote in favor of it.


----------



## Katzndogz

If the treaty is a good one it will be approved.   If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it. 

Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion. 

It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.


----------



## Jarhead

BULLDOG said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
Click to expand...

yes...and by the time we have a treaty signed...and inspections are thwarted, they will likely have accomplished what they want......to me, it seems the talks have taken way too long....about a year so far and still nothing.....seems like a stall tactic to me.


----------



## SuperDemocrat

Luddly Neddite said:


> Concrete proof of what I've said for a long time now - they want to destroy the US. Repubs work to weaken the strength and position of the US on the world stage.
> 
> Once and for all, this proves their hatred has nothing at all to do with the Obama presidency. Its the entire country they want to bring down.


There hatred of America has everything to do with race not country.   Didn't someone send you the correct talking points?   And who said you can go off script


----------



## Jarhead

Tipsycatlover said:


> If the treaty is a good one it will be approved.   If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.
> 
> Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.
> 
> It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.


if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.


----------



## BULLDOG

Jarhead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> 
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes...and by the time we have a treaty signed...and inspections are thwarted, they will likely have accomplished what they want......to me, it seems the talks have taken way too long....about a year so far and still nothing.....seems like a stall tactic to me.
Click to expand...



Not surprising. If it is in opposition to your president, you're all for it.


----------



## Jarhead

BULLDOG said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
Click to expand...

it takes over a year to agree to inspections?

That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?


----------



## Katzndogz

Jarhead said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the treaty is a good one it will be approved.   If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.
> 
> Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.
> 
> It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.
> 
> 
> 
> if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.
Click to expand...

And the next president can revoke it with a stroke of his pen.  All sanctions are immediately reimposed plus whatever the new president wants.


----------



## Jarhead

BULLDOG said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes...and by the time we have a treaty signed...and inspections are thwarted, they will likely have accomplished what they want......to me, it seems the talks have taken way too long....about a year so far and still nothing.....seems like a stall tactic to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising. If it is in opposition to your president, you're all for it.
Click to expand...

That was an unsubstantiated claim and to be frank, a sign of immaturity.
Thought we had a good discussion going on....but once I made a point you could not refute (even with hyperbole), you opted to attack my character.
Sorry bud....no interest.


----------



## Jarhead

Tipsycatlover said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the treaty is a good one it will be approved.   If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.
> 
> Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.
> 
> It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.
> 
> 
> 
> if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the next president can revoke it with a stroke of his pen.  All sanctions are immediately reimposed plus whatever the new president wants.
Click to expand...

Actually, a pen is not required. He can simply ask congress for it back and toss it in the shredder.


----------



## LoneLaugher

Desperado said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> No that is not the GOP for you, that is the treasonous Neocon contingent putting their love for Israel before the United States again.
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm. I wasn't sure if any of our nutters would find this letter objectionable. Nice to see.

Anyone else?


----------



## Jarhead

Actually, n retrospect, I don't really understand the reason for the letter. House members have no say in a treaty (other than to voice their opinions), and what right do they have to speak on behalf of the next administration and the next senate? Heck, they don't even know who will be running.
Edited...I just realized it was senators that wrote the letter...and yes, they will be around for the next president....so they had valid reason....just don't know if it was a smart thing to do.


----------



## Misty

AceRothstein said:


> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.


Wrong. No war. Sanctions up the wazoo. But no war.


----------



## Misty

LoneLaugher said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> No that is not the GOP for you, that is the treasonous Neocon contingent putting their love for Israel before the United States again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm. I wasn't sure if any of our nutters would find this letter objectionable. Nice to see.
> 
> Anyone else?
Click to expand...

I've seen first hand, so many outright lies by the media that I am not sure I believe anything they say.


----------



## hangover

Obvious that the cons are like the playground bully, trying to start a nuclear war with threats. And they can't be shamed for being assholes, they're just too fucking stupid.


----------



## Jarhead

hangover said:


> Obvious that the cons are like the playground bully, trying to start a nuclear war with threats. And they can't be shamed for being assholes, they're just too fucking stupid.


Starting a nuclear war?

What are you....three?


----------



## Jarhead

Misty said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. No war. Sanctions up the wazoo. But no war.
Click to expand...

that's all anyone on the right is saying. Seems the left are the only ones claiming the right wants war.


----------



## bodecea

LordBrownTrout said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
Click to expand...

And yet...it is the JOB of the President to negotiate treaties and the JOB of the Senate to approve or disapprove such treaties once negotiated.


----------



## Jarhead

bodecea said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet...it is the JOB of the President to negotiate treaties and the JOB of the Senate to approve or disapprove such treaties once negotiated.
Click to expand...

Well...it is the JOB of the president to ensure the treaties are negotiated by those best equipped to do so. He, himself is not obligated to sign the treaty......only the final senatorial ratification.


----------



## hangover

Jarhead said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious that the cons are like the playground bully, trying to start a nuclear war with threats. And they can't be shamed for being assholes, they're just too fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Starting a nuclear war?
> 
> What are you....three?
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## bodecea

RetiredGySgt said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
Click to expand...

What you say is very very true.   However, these "senators" can't wait to do THEIR job, can they?


----------



## Jarhead

hangover said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious that the cons are like the playground bully, trying to start a nuclear war with threats. And they can't be shamed for being assholes, they're just too fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Starting a nuclear war?
> 
> What are you....three?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Oh...I did not realize you were one of those posters that say meaningless things when they don't have a comeback.

Sorry to have bothered you.


----------



## Jarhead

bodecea said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you say is very very true.   However, these "senators" can't wait to do THEIR job, can they?
Click to expand...

yeah...I am a little confused as to what their angle is with that letter. I can not come up with a single reason as to why it would be useful.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Love it!   Going around obama on treaty negotiations.  Justified.  I hope the GOP declares War on the Obama Regime.


----------



## bodecea

Political Junky said:


> Hopefully this will come back to bite those GOP Senators in the ass.


You would hope so....but probably not.   Their constituents probably are eating their Jingoism right up.


----------



## bodecea

Political Junky said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
> 
> 
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think those 47 senators are hoping for that.
Click to expand...

They've probably got some deep stock investments in the military industrial complex.


----------



## hangover

", without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law."

There are lots of Senate approved treaties that have been broken with not only Native Americans, but also with many middle east countries. That's how we created Al Qaeda and ISIS.


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Obama needs approval of the senate to ratify a treaty.


----------



## bodecea

AvgGuyIA said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love it!   Going around obama on treaty negotiations.  Justified.  I hope the GOP declares War on the Obama Regime.
Click to expand...

So, you are not fond of our Constitutionals form of government.  Very well then.  Noted.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

bodecea said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think those 47 senators are hoping for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They've probably got some deep stock investments in the military industrial complex.
Click to expand...

No enemies, no wars, no new weapons or factories to make them.  That won't work, not for them at least.


----------



## hangover

Jarhead said:


> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hangover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obvious that the cons are like the playground bully, trying to start a nuclear war with threats. And they can't be shamed for being assholes, they're just too fucking stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Starting a nuclear war?
> 
> What are you....three?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh...I did not realize you were one of those posters that say meaningless things when they don't have a comeback.
> 
> Sorry to have bothered you.
Click to expand...

Again, thanks for proving my point. Cons are just too fucking stupid.


----------



## hangover

PaintMyHouse said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think those 47 senators are hoping for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They've probably got some deep stock investments in the military industrial complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No enemies, no wars, no new weapons or factories to make them.  That won't work, not for them at least.
Click to expand...

Yep, probably couldn't have wars without "male".


----------



## Jarhead

bodecea said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Love it!   Going around obama on treaty negotiations.  Justified.  I hope the GOP declares War on the Obama Regime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are not fond of our Constitutionals form of government.  Very well then.  Noted.
Click to expand...

For decades, members of both sides of the aisles have met with heads of state and offered their personal opinions as it pertains to relations with those states.
Your claim..."So, you are not fond of our Constitutionals form of government"......... is nonsense.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

hangover said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think those 47 senators are hoping for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They've probably got some deep stock investments in the military industrial complex.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No enemies, no wars, no new weapons or factories to make them.  That won't work, not for them at least.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, probably couldn't have wars without "male".
Click to expand...

You got that right.  You need killers when it's killing time, and in America there's always someone we want dead.


----------



## Jarhead

AvgGuyIA said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama needs approval of the senate to ratify a treaty.
Click to expand...

with a 2/3 vote...as of now, he will have trouble getting a 50% vote.....so I don't understand why the letter.....what was it to accomplish?


----------



## Uncensored2008

BULLDOG said:


> Quit listening to rush. Nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran.



Is he even still on the air?

Obama is a fool who is easily manipulated and has a blind spot for radical Islam.


----------



## G.T.

Jarhead said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama needs approval of the senate to ratify a treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a 2/3 vote...as of now, he will have trouble getting a 50% vote.....so I don't understand why the letter.....what was it to accomplish?
Click to expand...

Why the letter? 

You said you support it.

This government is completely trash. Its like 2 immature fuckin fraternities going tit for tat with each other like girls


----------



## Jarhead

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama needs approval of the senate to ratify a treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a 2/3 vote...as of now, he will have trouble getting a 50% vote.....so I don't understand why the letter.....what was it to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the letter?
> 
> You said you support it.
> 
> This government is completely trash. Its like 2 immature fuckin fraternities going tit for tat with each other like girls
Click to expand...

I support the right for any member of congress to express his/her view.

However, I don't see what those 47 senators expected to gain form it...it surely wont help....so I don't support it OR denounce it....until I find out what their angle was.


----------



## Iceweasel

jillian said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we didn't need to go to war with the USSR but liberals want nothing more than to solve the problem with hope and change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Examples please.
> 
> Oh wait. You have none
Click to expand...

Examples? Use your brain. 

Oh wait. You have none.


----------



## bodecea

AvgGuyIA said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama needs approval of the senate to ratify a treaty.
Click to expand...

Yes...the President's JOB is to negotiate....once that's been negotiated, the Senate's JOB is to ratify or not what he has negotiated.


----------



## Jroc

The Senate approves treaties this would be a treaty plus anyone would put their complete confidence in Obama is seriously delusional


----------



## Uncensored2008

bodecea said:


> Yes...the President's JOB is to negotiate....once that's been negotiated, the Senate's JOB is to ratify or not what he has negotiated.



The president's job is to negotiate ON BEHALF OF AMERICA - Obama is confused by this and continues to negotiate on behalf of the Caliphate.


----------



## Penelope

Interesting. I foresee Israel doing a false flag, and starting something, and the US will have to back them up.  I for one think Iran has a right to do what it wants within the limits of the IAEA and P5+1 and if the Gops traitors don't like it too bad. No more sanctions either. I have never voted Dem. but I will vote a straight Dem ticket next time around I'm so sick of the Gop's behavior.


----------



## blackhawk

Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?


----------



## Wry Catcher

RetiredGySgt said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
Click to expand...


[Art. 2, Sec. 2, Clause 2] "He shall have power, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur".  Of course no mention is made in the COTUS of crazy Ted Cruz, Rand Paul or Marco Rubio and their ambitions to out conservative each other.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

blackhawk said:


> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?


Given ours you can ask the very same...


----------



## deltex1

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Da soupream chiken done come home to roost, bruh.  Uppity president gets it uppity his ass.


----------



## Statistikhengst

BULLDOG said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What Obama is doing with the carrot and stick approach vis-a-vis Iran is a smart negotiating tactic, one I am quite sure Reagan, arguably the most anti-nuclear President we had,  would use in this situation. Only, most Conservatives are either too stubborn, crazy or stupid to realize this.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jarhead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> 
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes over a year to agree to inspections?
> 
> That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?
Click to expand...

It took 3 years for Iraq to agree back in the day. .. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Tipsycatlover said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the treaty is a good one it will be approved.   If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.
> 
> Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.
> 
> It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.
> 
> 
> 
> if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the next president can revoke it with a stroke of his pen.  All sanctions are immediately reimposed plus whatever the new president wants.
Click to expand...

Hillary is not going to do that.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Jarhead

Statistikhengst said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes over a year to agree to inspections?
> 
> That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It took 3 years for Iraq to agree back in the day. ..
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

back in the day we did not have Iran as close as they are to nuclear capabilities as they are now.


----------



## Jarhead

Statistikhengst said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the treaty is a good one it will be approved.   If the treaty is a bad one obama won't let congress see it.
> 
> Iran saying that it either gets what they want or they will declare war isn't negotiation its extortion.
> 
> It's too complicated for democrats who just want to be told what to do and what will be done to them.
> 
> 
> 
> if he does not allow congress to see it, then the senate can not vote on it....and if they don't vote on it, it is meaningless and unconstitutional if he, the president, demands that the government and the people of the United States adhere to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the next president can revoke it with a stroke of his pen.  All sanctions are immediately reimposed plus whatever the new president wants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hillary is not going to do that.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

she wont have the opportunity to do so.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Jarhead said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes over a year to agree to inspections?
> 
> That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It took 3 years for Iraq to agree back in the day. ..
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back in the day we did not have Iran as close as they are to nuclear capabilities as they are now.
Click to expand...

So what?  They have every right to build the bomb, or are nations not allowed to build weapons you don't approve of?


----------



## deltex1

As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jarhead said:


> Actually, n retrospect, I don't really understand the reason for the letter. House members have no say in a treaty (other than to voice their opinions), and what right do they have to speak on behalf of the next administration and the next senate? Heck, they don't even know who will be running.
> Edited...I just realized it was senators that wrote the letter...and yes, they will be around for the next president....so they had valid reason....just don't know if it was a smart thing to do.


It was not. Partisan differences within the USA are SUPPOSED to end at the waters edge. That has been our policy for more than 200 years and now, within a space of just 7 days, both Houses of Congress, first the HOR  and now the Senate, under incompetent GOP "leadership" have broken that protocol and proven themselves to be a disloyal party. If they are willing to go this far to fuck with the prez, what will they do next? Allow an enemy to smuggle a dirty bomb into the USA? Give our defense codes to El Quaida? Disclose the names of secret agents across the world? Only G-d knows the depths to which the current GOP will go. It's pretty damned disconcerting. And a disgrace to our Republic.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.


Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.


----------



## deltex1

Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jarhead said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to correct your ignorance, without Senate approval a treaty is not binding nor enforceable nor does it have the weight of the law. Again no Senate approval no treaty. Pretty simple concept, even for you to grasp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you say is very very true.   However, these "senators" can't wait to do THEIR job, can they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yeah...I am a little confused as to what their angle is with that letter. I can not come up with a single reason as to why it would be useful.
Click to expand...

Nothing about it is useful. It is a major breach of protocol and an attempt to make foreign policy, which is the purview of the sitting President and not the Senate. They also have no idea what will be in the treaty since the details have not been released yet. They are also, like small children, trying to embarrass the President. It's disloyal and it's seditious. The current bunch of GOP fuckups are far more suited for the island of misfit toys than for Congress. And Tom Tee Potty Cotton initiated this to make a name for himself.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?


They have every right to build the bomb, and in that neighborhood they should if they haven't already.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
Click to expand...

So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
Click to expand...

A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?
> 
> 
> 
> They have every right to build the bomb, and in that neighborhood they should if they haven't already.
Click to expand...

Obabble promised they cannot have the bomb.  So your tit is in the wringer.


----------



## Statistikhengst

deltex1 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Da soupream chiken done come home to roost, bruh.  Uppity president gets it uppity his ass.
Click to expand...

Nice racist touch. Been practicing a lot? 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
Click to expand...

It is to bibi.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?
> 
> 
> 
> They have every right to build the bomb, and in that neighborhood they should if they haven't already.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obabble promised they cannot have the bomb.  So your tit is in the wringer.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less if he promised you a pony.  What Iran builds is none of our damn business.  We are the only crazy fuckers to ever use the damn things so we have no right to talk, none.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jarhead said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes over a year to agree to inspections?
> 
> That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It took 3 years for Iraq to agree back in the day. ..
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> back in the day we did not have Iran as close as they are to nuclear capabilities as they are now.
Click to expand...

They are no closer now than they were in 1991.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?



Actually there is something very wrong with someone (Congress) trying to upset and derail delicate foreign policy negotiations. Wrong to the point of smelling treasony.


----------



## deltex1

Statistikhengst said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Da soupream chiken done come home to roost, bruh.  Uppity president gets it uppity his ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice racist touch. Been practicing a lot?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Simply the truth...in the parlance of our time....Dude.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is to bibi.
Click to expand...

Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.


----------



## deltex1

Seawytch said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is something very wrong with someone (Congress) trying to upset and derail delicate foreign policy negotiations. Wrong to the point of smelling treasony.
Click to expand...

Transparency would calm the waters...what is there to hide.


----------



## Katzndogz

Statistikhengst said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, n retrospect, I don't really understand the reason for the letter. House members have no say in a treaty (other than to voice their opinions), and what right do they have to speak on behalf of the next administration and the next senate? Heck, they don't even know who will be running.
> Edited...I just realized it was senators that wrote the letter...and yes, they will be around for the next president....so they had valid reason....just don't know if it was a smart thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. Partisan differences within the USA are SUPPOSED to end at the waters edge. That has been our policy for more than 200 years and now, within a space of just 7 days, both Houses of Congress, first the HOR  and now the Senate, under incompetent GOP "leadership" have broken that protocol and proven themselves to be a disloyal party. If they are willing to go this far to fuck with the prez, what will they do next? Allow an enemy to smuggle a dirty bomb into the USA? Give our defence codes to El Quaida? Disclose the names of secret agents across the world? Only G-d knows the depths to which the current GOP will go. It's pretty damned disconcerting. And a disgrace to our Republic.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So far the only one to give our military strategy to isis has been obama. 

John McCain Lindsay Graham blast Obama for leaking ISIS attack plan - Washington Times


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Tipsycatlover said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, n retrospect, I don't really understand the reason for the letter. House members have no say in a treaty (other than to voice their opinions), and what right do they have to speak on behalf of the next administration and the next senate? Heck, they don't even know who will be running.
> Edited...I just realized it was senators that wrote the letter...and yes, they will be around for the next president....so they had valid reason....just don't know if it was a smart thing to do.
> 
> 
> 
> It was not. Partisan differences within the USA are SUPPOSED to end at the waters edge. That has been our policy for more than 200 years and now, within a space of just 7 days, both Houses of Congress, first the HOR  and now the Senate, under incompetent GOP "leadership" have broken that protocol and proven themselves to be a disloyal party. If they are willing to go this far to fuck with the prez, what will they do next? Allow an enemy to smuggle a dirty bomb into the USA? Give our defence codes to El Quaida? Disclose the names of secret agents across the world? Only G-d knows the depths to which the current GOP will go. It's pretty damned disconcerting. And a disgrace to our Republic.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So far the only one to give our military strategy to isis has been obama.
> 
> John McCain Lindsay Graham blast Obama for leaking ISIS attack plan - Washington Times
Click to expand...

We have a strategy?  Well that's curious.


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is something very wrong with someone (Congress) trying to upset and derail delicate foreign policy negotiations. Wrong to the point of smelling treasony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Transparency would calm the waters...what is there to hide.
Click to expand...


So this is the first time delicate foreign policy matters were not discussed openly in front of Congress? Really?


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
Click to expand...

And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.


----------



## deltex1

Seawytch said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is something very wrong with someone (Congress) trying to upset and derail delicate foreign policy negotiations. Wrong to the point of smelling treasony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Transparency would calm the waters...what is there to hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this is the first time delicate foreign policy matters were not discussed openly in front of Congress? Really?
Click to expand...

This is the first time we have had a genuine moron as president.  Uncharted waters.


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is something very wrong with someone (Congress) trying to upset and derail delicate foreign policy negotiations. Wrong to the point of smelling treasony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Transparency would calm the waters...what is there to hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this is the first time delicate foreign policy matters were not discussed openly in front of Congress? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the first time we have had a genuine moron as president.  Uncharted waters.
Click to expand...


If you didn't want to have an actual discussion,  you should have said so. We will just have to remember this sort of thing if there is ever another republican president. 

Treasonous actions are okay if you think the President elected in two electoral landslides is a "moron". Good to know for the Dems in the future.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> 
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
Click to expand...

Your fantasies of war are just that.  Five million Jews versus 300 million Arabs and 75 million Persians.  Do the math.


----------



## deltex1

Seawytch said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing wrong with advising the iranian liars that they are wasting their time if they think they can get away with the usual duplicity.  Who trust Obabble to hold the line?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is something very wrong with someone (Congress) trying to upset and derail delicate foreign policy negotiations. Wrong to the point of smelling treasony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Transparency would calm the waters...what is there to hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this is the first time delicate foreign policy matters were not discussed openly in front of Congress? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the first time we have had a genuine moron as president.  Uncharted waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you didn't want to have an actual discussion,  you should have said so. We will just have to remember this sort of thing if there is ever another republican president.
> 
> Treasonous actions are okay if you think the President elected in two electoral landslides is a "moron". Good to know for the Dems in the future.
Click to expand...

If you wanted an actual discussion you would not be screaming treason.  Read the basis for the Senates warning.  Even the ayatollah understands how the cow eats the cabbage.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> 
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies of war are just that.  Five million Jews versus 300 million Arabs and 75 million Persians.  Do the math.
Click to expand...

Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> 
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies of war are just that.  Five million Jews versus 300 million Arabs and 75 million Persians.  Do the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.
Click to expand...

Yep, you're a total loon alright.


----------



## Statistikhengst

I commend Jarhead  for actually taking the time to debate the points in the OP and also to agree to disagree.

Well done.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies of war are just that.  Five million Jews versus 300 million Arabs and 75 million Persians.  Do the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
Click to expand...

Won't be me...it will be the Jews.


----------



## Lakhota

> *Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!*



Republican arrogance is beyond comprehension.  Did Nutanyahoo write the letter for them?  I suspect these arrogant bastards are in for a rude awakening in 2016.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> 
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fantasies of war are just that.  Five million Jews versus 300 million Arabs and 75 million Persians.  Do the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
Click to expand...

The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?


----------



## deltex1

Lakhota said:


> *Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican arrogance is beyond comprehension.  Did Nutanyahoo write the letter for them?  I suspect these arrogant bastards are in for a rude awakening in 2016.
Click to expand...

Maybe Obabble can take it to the Supremes...where all his stupid ideas end up.


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies of war are just that.  Five million Jews versus 300 million Arabs and 75 million Persians.  Do the math.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
Click to expand...

I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...


----------



## AvgGuyIA

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.


Obama's treaty paves a super highway for Iranian nukes and you jackasses call the GOP treasonous.

Grow up and get your head out of Obama's ass.


----------



## Camp

deltex1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is something very wrong with someone (Congress) trying to upset and derail delicate foreign policy negotiations. Wrong to the point of smelling treasony.
> 
> 
> 
> Transparency would calm the waters...what is there to hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this is the first time delicate foreign policy matters were not discussed openly in front of Congress? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the first time we have had a genuine moron as president.  Uncharted waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you didn't want to have an actual discussion,  you should have said so. We will just have to remember this sort of thing if there is ever another republican president.
> 
> Treasonous actions are okay if you think the President elected in two electoral landslides is a "moron". Good to know for the Dems in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you wanted an actual discussion you would not be screaming treason.  Read the basis for the Senates warning.  Even the ayatollah understands how the cow eats the cabbage.
Click to expand...

Sabatoge, aiding and abetting and giving the enemy an advantage adds up to treason. It is what it is.


----------



## Lakhota

Sounds like Republican treason to me.


----------



## deltex1

Spindleman would enjoy this conversation....


----------



## idb

I suppose that the GOP warning goes both ways.
Iran will surely negotiate now and give the US anything that they ask for to get the sanctions released.
After all everyone now knows that the US Congress believes that countries don't have to honour treaties beyond election cycles.
If I was Iran I'd be saying "Sure, anything you want...can you lift the sanctions now please?"


----------



## deltex1

Camp said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Transparency would calm the waters...what is there to hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this is the first time delicate foreign policy matters were not discussed openly in front of Congress? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the first time we have had a genuine moron as president.  Uncharted waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you didn't want to have an actual discussion,  you should have said so. We will just have to remember this sort of thing if there is ever another republican president.
> 
> Treasonous actions are okay if you think the President elected in two electoral landslides is a "moron". Good to know for the Dems in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you wanted an actual discussion you would not be screaming treason.  Read the basis for the Senates warning.  Even the ayatollah understands how the cow eats the cabbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sabatoge, aiding and abetting and giving the enemy an advantage adds up to treason. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

You mean preventing the president's treason?


----------



## AvgGuyIA

g5000 said:


> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.


Your concern regarding balance of power should extend to the legislature. For now stfu about undermining Obama.  Elections have consequences and the ?Gop is following our orders:  oppose Obama on everything except his resignation from 
Office.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies of war are just that.  Five million Jews versus 300 million Arabs and 75 million Persians.  Do the math.
> 
> 
> 
> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
Click to expand...


Perhaps someone should fill the Iranians in on the mutually assured destruction angle...that has worked so well for decades


----------



## deltex1

SassyIrishLass said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps someone should fill the Iranians in on the mutually assured destruction angle...that has worked so well for decades
Click to expand...

I prefer the pre-emptive option.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

deltex1 said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps someone should fill the Iranians in on the mutually assured destruction angle...that has worked so well for decades
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I prefer the pre-emptive option.
Click to expand...


As do I. But the fact remains when you have crazy people with nukes mutually assured comes into play


----------



## Preacher

AceRothstein said:


> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.


That's because their leader Netanyahu came and gave his speech and set the table for what he wants his party to do and they will do so no matter the costs...They are not loyal to America or its citizens and if it was me running the country every single one of the bastards would be arrested,charged with treason and given a traitors punishment. Obama HAS to hit back at these bastards.


----------



## Preacher

If I was Iran I would get a nuke,buy a nuke something to insure their safety after Obama leaves office because if these batshit crazy bastards get their way we will invade Iran spilling more American blood for Israel


----------



## Seawytch

deltex1 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually there is something very wrong with someone (Congress) trying to upset and derail delicate foreign policy negotiations. Wrong to the point of smelling treasony.
> 
> 
> 
> Transparency would calm the waters...what is there to hide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So this is the first time delicate foreign policy matters were not discussed openly in front of Congress? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is the first time we have had a genuine moron as president.  Uncharted waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you didn't want to have an actual discussion,  you should have said so. We will just have to remember this sort of thing if there is ever another republican president.
> 
> Treasonous actions are okay if you think the President elected in two electoral landslides is a "moron". Good to know for the Dems in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you wanted an actual discussion you would not be screaming treason.  Read the basis for the Senates warning.  Even the ayatollah understands how the cow eats the cabbage.
Click to expand...


So you don't think trying to derail and undermine delicate foreign policy negotiations borders on treason? Like I said...good information to tuck away for the future should a republican ever become President.


----------



## Camp

deltex1 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> So this is the first time delicate foreign policy matters were not discussed openly in front of Congress? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first time we have had a genuine moron as president.  Uncharted waters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you didn't want to have an actual discussion,  you should have said so. We will just have to remember this sort of thing if there is ever another republican president.
> 
> Treasonous actions are okay if you think the President elected in two electoral landslides is a "moron". Good to know for the Dems in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you wanted an actual discussion you would not be screaming treason.  Read the basis for the Senates warning.  Even the ayatollah understands how the cow eats the cabbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sabotage, aiding and abetting and giving the enemy an advantage adds up to treason. It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean preventing the president's treason?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of ways for the Senate to contest or prevent treaties from reaching fruition or agreement. Sabotaging negotiations is not one of them that is acceptable. Sabotaging negotiations is treason.


----------



## deltex1

But MAD implies allowing them to have a nuke to be deterred.  The Jews have said no deal to that.


----------



## Katzndogz

Can the democrats declare civil war now?   Isn't it time?


----------



## LoneLaugher

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama needs approval of the senate to ratify a treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a 2/3 vote...as of now, he will have trouble getting a 50% vote.....so I don't understand why the letter.....what was it to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the letter?
> 
> You said you support it.
> 
> This government is completely trash. Its like 2 immature fuckin fraternities going tit for tat with each other like girls
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the right for any member of congress to express his/her view.
> 
> However, I don't see what those 47 senators expected to gain form it...it surely wont help....so I don't support it OR denounce it....until I find out what their angle was.
Click to expand...


Holy shit!!!!!

It is fucking trolling. That's it. Idiot nutters trolling the POTUS. 

It isn't complicated.


----------



## deltex1

Camp said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first time we have had a genuine moron as president.  Uncharted waters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn't want to have an actual discussion,  you should have said so. We will just have to remember this sort of thing if there is ever another republican president.
> 
> Treasonous actions are okay if you think the President elected in two electoral landslides is a "moron". Good to know for the Dems in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you wanted an actual discussion you would not be screaming treason.  Read the basis for the Senates warning.  Even the ayatollah understands how the cow eats the cabbage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sabotage, aiding and abetting and giving the enemy an advantage adds up to treason. It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean preventing the president's treason?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are plenty of ways for the Senate to contest or prevent treaties from reaching fruition or agreement. Sabotaging negotiations is not one of them that is acceptable. Sabotaging negotiations is treason.
Click to expand...

How does this sabotage negotiations?  We haven't told iran anything they don't know.  And there is no guarantee they will abide by what they negotiate in the first place.


----------



## TheOldSchool

iamwhatiseem said:


> No Stat...if Bush did something like what Obama is doing - ALL of you guys would be screaming bloody murder.
> President Obama no way, no how should be making any deals as important as this without Congress. That is absolutely stupid. We are not Venezuela.
> You might remember something called the Revolutionary War that was fought to remove ourselves from Monarchical governance.


No we'd probably be shocked


AvgGuyIA said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's treaty paves a super highway for Iranian nukes and you jackasses call the GOP treasonous.
> 
> Grow up and get your head out of Obama's ass.
Click to expand...

Get your head out of your own ass first.  "Paves a superhighway for Iranian nukes?"  Is that what Hannity and Levin have been calling it?  You people are ridiculous.


----------



## idb

deltex1 said:


> But MAD implies allowing them to have a nuke to be deterred.  The Jews have said no deal to that.


It also implies that both parties have the means to destroy the other.
How could Iran threaten the US with destruction?


----------



## LoneLaugher

blackhawk said:


> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?



Why would they think we would honor said deal? Especially now?


----------



## skye

Great move by the Republicans to demonstrate to Hussein Obama once and for all that hasn't got  the Dictator style power to which he thinks he is entitled!

Only a committed appeacing admirer of the Iranian Regime could not clearly see that the Mullahs are playing its usual double game.

The surprising thing is the Iranian  Regime is clearly announcing its dangerous intentions, as did Hitler, but Hussein Obama chooses to ignore the obvious.


----------



## deltex1

idb said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But MAD implies allowing them to have a nuke to be deterred.  The Jews have said no deal to that.
> 
> 
> 
> It also implies that both parties have the means to destroy the other.
> How could Iran threaten the US with destruction?
Click to expand...

They can't directly.  They can using Obabble's open borders.   And the focus is israel...they could be decimated with one bomb...they are not going to tolerate that....no way.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your fantasies of war are just that.  Five million Jews versus 300 million Arabs and 75 million Persians.  Do the math.
> 
> 
> 
> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
Click to expand...

They can't, and they know it.


----------



## deltex1

LoneLaugher said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they think we would honor said deal? Especially now?
Click to expand...

What part of "the deal" would we be compelled not to honor?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

blackhawk said:


> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?



What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness.
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't, and they know it.
Click to expand...

Why not?


----------



## LoneLaugher

deltex1 said:


> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they think we would honor said deal? Especially now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "the deal" would we be compelled not to honor?
Click to expand...


You funny.


----------



## deltex1

theDoctorisIn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
Click to expand...

How about the expectation they would not kill our soldiers and citizens?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't, and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...

Because taking action on their own would lead to their destruction, and they know it.  It's why they haven't done it already and just spent their time talking here instead of acting there.


----------



## deltex1

LoneLaugher said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LoneLaugher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would they think we would honor said deal? Especially now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of "the deal" would we be compelled not to honor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You funny.
Click to expand...

You stumped.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the expectation they would not kill our soldiers and citizens?
Click to expand...

What treaty said that?


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't, and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because taking action on their own would lead to their destruction, and they know it.  It's why they haven't done it already and just spent their time talking here instead of acting there.
Click to expand...

Taking action before iran goes nuclear is their only chance.  One they are wiling to take.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, you're a total loon alright.
> 
> 
> 
> Won't be me...it will be the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't, and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...


Do you really think that any of the other nuclear powers would allow Israel to nuke Iran?


----------



## BULLDOG

Jarhead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> 
> 
> you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?
> 
> Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?
> 
> I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it takes over a year to agree to inspections?
> 
> That in itself does not give you reason to believe Iran is intentionally delaying a treaty?
Click to expand...


Various countries, as well as groups of countries have been talking to Iran about some sort of nuclear treaty since 03. This is not just a recent discussion. They do not now and have not in the past had nuclear capability. Why would you not want agreed upon inspections to make sure they are not capable of producing a weapon? Of course Iran would like to be able to do what ever they want with their nuclear plans, and without a treaty will proceed with what they claim is only nuclear power plants. We can either go to war to destroy what ever capability they might develop, or make inspections to assure that power plants are all they are doing. Why are you in such a rush to start a war that might not be necessary?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

deltex1 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the expectation they would not kill our soldiers and citizens?
Click to expand...


I'm not aware of any agreement or treaty that we have with Iran that would create such an "expectation".


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about the expectation they would not kill our soldiers and citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What treaty said that?
Click to expand...

No treaty...just what peace loving nations expect of one another


----------



## blackhawk

theDoctorisIn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
Click to expand...

I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.


----------



## Lakhota

This treasonous Republican arrogance may have a silver lining - to help defeat Nutanyahoo in the upcoming Israeli election.  Last I heard, his party is behind in the polls.


----------



## deltex1

I'm going to eat.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> No treaty...just what peace loving nations expect of one another


Don't, since neither Iran nor the US are anything of the kind.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> I'm going to eat.


Smartest thing you've done all damn day.


----------



## Penelope

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
Click to expand...


Horrible, Iran has done nothing, they had to fight off Iraq. Israel and SA is jealous of Iran.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

blackhawk said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.
Click to expand...


So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.


----------



## Dot Com

theDoctorisIn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
Click to expand...


----------



## Penelope

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> 
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
Click to expand...


There isn't a jewish nation.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Penelope said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> 
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't a jewish nation.
Click to expand...

It's close enough for government work...


----------



## SuperDemocrat

Jarhead said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.
> 
> Negotiating with a country like Iran, to me, is treason. They have proven over and over that they are not to be trusted...so for the US to sign a "promise' based on the promise of Iran is foolish and will hand tie the US while Iran will continues to do as they please.
> 
> Hey, if you trust the signature of Iran...go for it.
> 
> Most don't.
Click to expand...


I definitely agree that allowing Iran to have weapons is treason....those dastardly republicans are at it again.  Thank god...I mean...thank goodness that Obama is stopping them


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Penelope said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horrible, Iran has done nothing, they had to fight off Iraq. Israel and SA is jealous of Iran.
Click to expand...


Iran fights its wars by proxy...see Hezzbolah


----------



## PaintMyHouse

SuperDemocrat said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> That's a matter of opinion.
> 
> Negotiating with a country like Iran, to me, is treason. They have proven over and over that they are not to be trusted...so for the US to sign a "promise' based on the promise of Iran is foolish and will hand tie the US while Iran will continues to do as they please.
> 
> Hey, if you trust the signature of Iran...go for it.
> 
> Most don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I definitely agree that allowing Iran to have weapons is treason....those dastardly republicans are at it again.  Thank god...I mean...thank goodness that Obama is stopping them
Click to expand...

Could be worse.  This time they have to make them themselves, Reagan isn't just shipping them in.


----------



## BULLDOG

Jarhead said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes...and by the time we have a treaty signed...and inspections are thwarted, they will likely have accomplished what they want......to me, it seems the talks have taken way too long....about a year so far and still nothing.....seems like a stall tactic to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising. If it is in opposition to your president, you're all for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was an unsubstantiated claim and to be frank, a sign of immaturity.
> Thought we had a good discussion going on....but once I made a point you could not refute (even with hyperbole), you opted to attack my character.
> Sorry bud....no interest.
Click to expand...



How long do you think it takes to convert from nuclear power to making a bomb? Experts say at least a year. If inspections are thwarted, and are not resumed in enough time to be assured a weapon is not possible, war to destroy all nuclear capabilities is still an option.  As long as they play nice, and our inspections prove that is all they are doing, there is no reason to sacrifice lives and fortune. This in no way helps them in any efforts to produce a weapon.


----------



## JakeStarkey

*Dr. Zarifs Response to the Letter of US Senators*

_Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.

Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations._ Iranian Foreign Minister responds to traitorous republicans letter US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Rocko

I have a feeling this is a smoke screen so republicans can raise the debt ceiling and cave on immigration.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

SassyIrishLass said:


> Penelope said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I recall, iran signed the non proliferation treaty.  As such they cannot pursue nukes.  If they drop out of the treaty, they can.  And we can nuke them back to Mohammed.
> 
> 
> 
> Since several states, including Israel, never signed the thing I'm not too worried about what our puppet the Shah did, and neither are they.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Horrible, Iran has done nothing, they had to fight off Iraq. Israel and SA is jealous of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran fights its wars by proxy...see Hezzbolah
Click to expand...

And we use Israel, mercenaries, and the CIA.  Welcome to being a nation with plausible deniability.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Penelope said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> 
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't a jewish nation.
Click to expand...


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Rocko said:


> I have a feeling this is a smoke screen so republicans can raise the debt ceiling and cave on immigration.



It is, in a way.


----------



## Dot Com

Sen Reid remarked how "personal" the Repub's hatred of our two-term President is. They expect to be taken seriously?

Harry Reid blasts GOP s Iran letter Hard slap in the face - Burgess Everett - POLITICO


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> *Dr. Zarifs Response to the Letter of US Senators*
> 
> _Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
> 
> Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations._ Iranian Foreign Minister responds to traitorous republicans letter US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


How very sad for those Senators to be so publically SCHOOLED on the U.S. Constitution by Iranians of all people.


----------



## Synthaholic




----------



## Luddly Neddite

All this back and forth doesn't change what the Rs did and the only possible reason they have for doing it -

To undermine and weaken the US on the world stage. 

They can never again say any of their obstruction has anything at all do to with President Obama.


----------



## deltex1

Synthaholic said:


>


Wasn't harry the senate majority leader a while back?  Scum bag.


----------



## deltex1

Lots more treason Tonite on Fox News.  Interview with alSisi of Egypt...analysis by Krauthammer...good stuff...


----------



## blackhawk

theDoctorisIn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.
Click to expand...

If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

blackhawk said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?
Click to expand...


If it's in the best interests of Iran to follow any treaty they might sign, they'll follow it.

Just like every other country in the world.


----------



## deltex1

deltex1 said:


> Lots more treason Tonite on Fox News.  Interview with alSisi of Egypt...analysis by Krauthammer...good stuff...


Why HAS obama not met with or commented on the Egyptian president?


----------



## blackhawk

theDoctorisIn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's in the best interests of Iran to follow any treaty they might sign, they'll follow it.
> 
> Just like every other country in the world.
Click to expand...

That seems to be a very big if given the stakes.


----------



## deltex1

theDoctorisIn said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Given Iran"s history over the last 30 plus years what makes anyone think they will honor any deal they might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's in the best interests of Iran to follow any treaty they might sign, they'll follow it.
> 
> Just like every other country in the world.
Click to expand...

So why do they say israel must be Destroyed?  Will this be in the treaty?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

blackhawk said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's in the best interests of Iran to follow any treaty they might sign, they'll follow it.
> 
> Just like every other country in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That seems to be a very big if given the stakes.
Click to expand...


How so?

What "stakes" are you referring to?


----------



## G.T.

Jarhead said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama needs approval of the senate to ratify a treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> with a 2/3 vote...as of now, he will have trouble getting a 50% vote.....so I don't understand why the letter.....what was it to accomplish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why the letter?
> 
> You said you support it.
> 
> This government is completely trash. Its like 2 immature fuckin fraternities going tit for tat with each other like girls
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I support the right for any member of congress to express his/her view.
> 
> However, I don't see what those 47 senators expected to gain form it...it surely wont help....so I don't support it OR denounce it....until I find out what their angle was.
Click to expand...

U said yer 1st post on this page u were with it


----------



## theDoctorisIn

deltex1 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What treaties or agreements have Iran broken over the course of the last 30 years?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's in the best interests of Iran to follow any treaty they might sign, they'll follow it.
> 
> Just like every other country in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do they say israel must be Destroyed?  Will this be in the treaty?
Click to expand...


"They" also say that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam.

Why is that you take them at their words sometimes, but not others?


----------



## G.T.

Jarhead said:


> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.


U 4got?


----------



## Penelope

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dr. Zarifs Response to the Letter of US Senators*
> 
> _Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
> 
> Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations._ Iranian Foreign Minister responds to traitorous republicans letter US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> How very sad for those Senators to be so publically SCHOOLED on the U.S. Constitution by Iranians of all people.
Click to expand...

I agree and very embarrassing
_Foreign Minister Zarif added that _*"I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law*


----------



## deltex1

theDoctorisIn said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know that they have signed any but given the fact the current leadership seems no different in mindset and ideology to the ones who came to power in 79 I have little confidence they would honor any agreement. Im simply curious as why people think this is somehow  a more kinder,gentler,agreeable Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's in the best interests of Iran to follow any treaty they might sign, they'll follow it.
> 
> Just like every other country in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do they say israel must be Destroyed?  Will this be in the treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They" also say that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam.
> 
> Why is that you take them at their words sometimes, but not others?
Click to expand...

I only believe threats, not promises or Koran interpretations.


----------



## Lakhota

Treasonous Republican arrogance is very dangerous to world peace.

*GOP Letter to Iran: Breathtaking Attempt to Sabotage U.S. Foreign Policy, Stampede U.S. Into War*


----------



## theDoctorisIn

deltex1 said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, your lack of confidence is due to what you think the leadership of Iran "seems like", rather than any "history", as you initially claimed.
> 
> 
> 
> If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it's in the best interests of Iran to follow any treaty they might sign, they'll follow it.
> 
> Just like every other country in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do they say israel must be Destroyed?  Will this be in the treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They" also say that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam.
> 
> Why is that you take them at their words sometimes, but not others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only believe threats, not promises or Koran interpretations.
Click to expand...


No, you believe the things you _want_ to believe.


----------



## Statistikhengst

skye said:


> Great move by the Republicans to demonstrate to Hussein Obama once and for all that hasn't got  the Dictator style power to which he thinks he is entitled!
> 
> Only a committed appeacing admirer of the Iranian Regime could not clearly see that the Mullahs are playing its usual double game.
> 
> The surprising thing is the Iranian  Regime is clearly announcing its dangerous intentions, as did Hitler, but Hussein Obama chooses to ignore the obvious.



Didn't keep Ronald Reagan from negotiating with the Iranians BEFORE he was inaugurated.

Do hypocrisy much?


----------



## Lakhota

Did Senator Tom Cotton and his band of traitors violate the Logan Act?

Senator Tom Cotton's letter to Iran is a direct violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted. We the People - Your Voice in Our Government

Logan Act: legal definition of Logan Act


----------



## Statistikhengst

Rocko said:


> I have a feeling this is a smoke screen so republicans can raise the debt ceiling and cave on immigration.



Whutt??


----------



## Roudy

Has anybody ever considered that Obama and Netanyahu, behind the scenes, are in it together, and could possibly be doing a good cop bad cop routine, forcing the Iranians into a deal they normally wouldn't agree to?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> Did Senator Tom Cotton and his band of traitors violate the Logan Act?
> 
> Senator Tom Cotton's letter to Iran is a direct violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted. We the People - Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> Logan Act: legal definition of Logan Act




This is quite possible this time and charges could be filed.


----------



## Dot Com

Synthaholic said:


>


Just like Leader Reid (D) said: Repubs are undermining the President while empowering the Ayatollahs. Repubs just keep sinking lower & lower in their partisan right wingery.


----------



## Statistikhengst

bodecea said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Dr. Zarifs Response to the Letter of US Senators*
> 
> _Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy.
> 
> Foreign Minister Zarif added that "I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law. The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfil the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations._ Iranian Foreign Minister responds to traitorous republicans letter US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> 
> 
> How very sad for those Senators to be so publically SCHOOLED on the U.S. Constitution by Iranians of all people.
Click to expand...


Yes, it really is sad.

Well, they were done oogling all over Putin's muscles. That was so 2013, you know.
And then the hot romance began with Bibi, but that just wanted enough.
Fascists needs a harder hand, one with an almost S&M quality. Just ask Tom Cotton's secret lover.
So, needing a really authoritarian hand, all those sexually charged elephants began to take a hard look at Sharia Law... and....


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Senator Tom Cotton and his band of traitors violate the Logan Act?
> 
> Senator Tom Cotton's letter to Iran is a direct violation of the Logan Act and should be prosecuted. We the People - Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> Logan Act: legal definition of Logan Act
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is quite possible this time and charges could be filed.
Click to expand...

Lets hope they are.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Leader Reid (D) said: Repubs are undermining the President while empowering the Ayatollahs. Repubs just keep sinking lower & lower in their partisan right wingery.
Click to expand...



As I already wrote earlier, if they are capable of this, how much farther can they sink? Allow a nuke to be snuck into the states and wipe out a major metropolis? Or a dirty bomb? Or a virus? Give information to El Quaida or ISIS in order for a battalion to be murdered? Honestly, after the horseshit of the last seven days, I wouldn't put anything past those treasonous, seditious bastards.


----------



## HenryBHough

If America really had a president there would have been no need to tell Iran anything.  They'd have understood they weren't free to wipe other nations off the face of the earth.  But, for now, they are correct in believing they can get away with it....and get an apology for America having made them do it.


----------



## Statistikhengst

I am all for the oppostion party voicing opposition, that is a SUCCESSFUL part of the sweeping majesty of our system.

But what the GOP is doing right now is creating a hostile, illoyal opposition. It is treasonous and it is seditious and it sends a very dangerous message to the base.


----------



## Lakhota

HenryBHough said:


> If America really had a president there would have been no need to tell Iran anything.  They'd have understood they weren't free to wipe other nations off the face of the earth.  But, for now, they are correct in believing they can get away with it....and get an apology for America having made them do it.



Yeah, just like how tough Bush was with Putin.  You hypocritical NaziCons are hilarious.  Dangerous, but hilarious.


----------



## Statistikhengst

HenryBHough said:


> If America really had a president there would have been no need to tell Iran anything.  They'd have understood they weren't free to wipe other nations off the face of the earth.  But, for now, they are correct in believing they can get away with it....and get an apology for America having made them do it.




I just want to make something clear, you piss poor, excrement filled excuse for a human being:

we DO have a president, and no amount of fucked up unicornland illusions on your part is going to change that.

Now, go fuck yourself, you disgusting turdball.


----------



## LoneLaugher

deltex1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The little Jewish Nazi didn't come here because he has any real power.  He doesn't, and he knows it, so why don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> I am content for the Jewish peeps to make the decision...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They can't, and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because taking action on their own would lead to their destruction, and they know it.  It's why they haven't done it already and just spent their time talking here instead of acting there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Taking action before iran goes nuclear is their only chance.  One they are wiling to take.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.


----------



## deltex1

theDoctorisIn said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you will note I never said anything about their history of treaties or agreements this is a nation that over the last thiry years that has sponored terrorism supports groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah backs the tryant Assad in Syria according to reports armed and backed Houthis who toppled the government in Yemen refuses to reconigze Israles right to exist and calls for it's destruction. So again back to my orginal question why do people feel this regime will honor any agreement it might sign?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it's in the best interests of Iran to follow any treaty they might sign, they'll follow it.
> 
> Just like every other country in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why do they say israel must be Destroyed?  Will this be in the treaty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "They" also say that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam.
> 
> Why is that you take them at their words sometimes, but not others?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only believe threats, not promises or Koran interpretations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you believe the things you _want_ to believe.
Click to expand...

Are you gonna send me a bill, Doc?


----------



## BluesLegend

AceRothstein said:


> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.



I think you have the ass backwards.


----------



## HenryBHough

Statistikhengst said:


> I just want to make something clear, you piss poor, excrement filled excuse for a human being:
> 
> we DO have a president, and no amount of fucked up unicornland illusions on your part is going to change that.
> 
> Now, go fuck yourself, you disgusting turdball.



*Preserved for display in 2017 as an acceptable response to anything a liberal might have to say on any subject.*


----------



## Jroc

We've got tot sign the treaty to see what in it


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like Leader Reid (D) said: Repubs are undermining the President while empowering the Ayatollahs. Repubs just keep sinking lower & lower in their partisan right wingery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I already wrote earlier, if they are capable of this, how much farther can they sink? Allow a nuke to be snuck into the states and wipe out a major metropolis? Or a dirty bomb? Or a virus? Give information to El Quaida or ISIS in order for a battalion to be murdered? Honestly, after the horseshit of the last seven days, I wouldn't put anything past those treasonous, seditious bastards.
Click to expand...

Neither would I.


----------



## Lakhota

Would these same treasonous Republicans have done the same thing to a Republican president during sensitive foreign policy negotiations?  I don't think so...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*“The judgment of my Republican colleagues seems to be clouded by their abhorrence of President Obama. The Republican senators sent a letter to the Iranian leadership aimed at sabotaging these negotiations,” Reid said. “It’s unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president.”* 


more... 

Harry Reid blasts GOP s Iran letter Hard slap in the face - Burgess Everett - POLITICO


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

HenryBHough said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to make something clear, you piss poor, excrement filled excuse for a human being:
> 
> we DO have a president, and no amount of fucked up unicornland illusions on your part is going to change that.
> 
> Now, go fuck yourself, you disgusting turdball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Preserved for display in 2017 as an acceptable response to anything a liberal might have to say on any subject.*
Click to expand...

Cry titty baby LOL Republican whine oh


----------



## Lakhota

Putting their letter in proper context:

Get That Worthless ****** Out Of The White House


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Iran Letter Backlash Grows As Bernie Sanders Accuses Senate Republicans Of Sabotage*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*47 Republicans May Have Just Broken the Law By Writing An Outrageous Letter To Iran*


----------



## HenryBHough

Never forget that what goes around comes around.  But it's not all that often liberals hand out licenses without charging for them!


----------



## Seawytch

HenryBHough said:


> Never forget that what goes around comes around.  But it's not all that often liberals hand out licenses without charging for them!



Excellent point. If this were a Republican president and the Dems pulled something like this...Issa would already be scheduling hearings.


----------



## Lakhota

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *47 Republicans May Have Just Broken the Law By Writing An Outrageous Letter To Iran*



Quite possibly.  I'm sure they'll hold Benghazi-style hearings to get to the bottom of it.


----------



## AceRothstein

Seawytch said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never forget that what goes around comes around.  But it's not all that often liberals hand out licenses without charging for them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent point. If this were a Republican president and the Dems pulled something like this...Issa would already be scheduling hearings.
Click to expand...

You're either with us or you're against us.


----------



## AceRothstein

BluesLegend said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have the ass backwards.
Click to expand...

They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.


----------



## Lakhota

Come on 2016 - so we can get these un-American treasonous bastards out of power.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*The letter to Iran was written by the "Benedict Arnold " wing of the GOP...*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

This space intentionally left blank ...


----------



## Lakhota

Did these treasonous Republicans think they were helping Nutanyahoo?  They seem as unhinged as Nutanyahoo.

Apart from inadvertently making the case for equal time by his Israeli pre-election opposition, the spectacle of Benjamin Netanyahu's wild diatribe at the joint session of Congress amidst the feral cheers of his congressional yahoos will be remembered as a textbook case of propaganda unhinged from reality.

Starting from his preposterous premise that Iran, a poor country of 77 million people with an economy nearly the size of Massachusetts', is planning a caliphate to conquer the world, Mr. Netanyahu builds his case on belligerent words by Iranian leaders, who believe they are responding to Israeli belligerence backed by its ultra-modern, U.S.-equipped military machine and its repeated threats of preemptive attacks against Tehran.

More: Netanyahu, the Other Israelis and Bobby Burns


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> This space intentionally left blank ...






CYA


----------



## Zander

Love it!!


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Wry Catcher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> No.  O's amateurish dealings with iran is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why in detail!  Or prove you're nothing more than a parrot, and echoing right wing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities.  If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's no detail, you are simply a parrot; realpolitik is at play, not religion nor ideology.
> 
> Do some homework and consider how the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline might force Russian and Iranian cooperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have but you'll carry on with your hackery and inability to understand oil/nat gas ministries in the region along with israel's natural gas fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I'm so impressed with your ability to post nothing of substance and nothing to suggest critical thought.  A skill well honed by your side of the aisle.
Click to expand...


I wasn't surprised that you couldn't comprehend the correlation of the oil ministries and their direct collusion with rogue states as it pertains to extracting natural resources. You really are that dumb. I thought you had a few cells up there to at least follow logical thought for a minute or two. Man, was I wrong.


----------



## Wry Catcher

LOGAN ACT

*§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.*
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).

Well, if 47 Republican Senators go to jail, the Democrats will be in control.  I wonder if McConnell signed the letter?


----------



## deltex1

HenryBHough said:


> If America really had a president there would have been no need to tell Iran anything.  They'd have understood they weren't free to wipe other nations off the face of the earth.  But, for now, they are correct in believing they can get away with it....and get an apology for America having made them do it.


Evidently obama had a smidgen of room in his ass after the Bibi insertion.


----------



## HenryBHough

Lakhota said:


> Come on 2016 - so we can get these un-American treasonous bastards out of power.



You seem convinced Obama will leave the White House willingly!  I admire your sense of the ridiculous.


----------



## orogenicman

The Republicans have clearly gone too far.

Tom Cotton Denies GOP Letter Undermines Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News



> “Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “This letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States, but our allies. This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite.
> 
> “Today's unprecedented letter originated by a United States senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago,” Reid said. “As a kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope that they do it sooner, rather than leader.”


----------



## Wry Catcher

LordBrownTrout said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain why in detail!  Or prove you're nothing more than a parrot, and echoing right wing propaganda.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities.  If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course there's no detail, you are simply a parrot; realpolitik is at play, not religion nor ideology.
> 
> Do some homework and consider how the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline might force Russian and Iranian cooperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have but you'll carry on with your hackery and inability to understand oil/nat gas ministries in the region along with israel's natural gas fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I'm so impressed with your ability to post nothing of substance and nothing to suggest critical thought.  A skill well honed by your side of the aisle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't surprised that you couldn't comprehend the correlation of the oil ministries and their direct collusion with rogue states as it pertains to extracting natural resources. You really are that dumb. I thought you had a few cells up there to at least follow logical thought for a minute or two. Man, was I wrong.
Click to expand...


Correlation does not imply causation, but I digress, what is the numerical correlation "of the oil ministries and their direct collusion with rogue states as it pertains to extracting natural resources."  Evidence required.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Statistikhengst said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If America really had a president there would have been no need to tell Iran anything.  They'd have understood they weren't free to wipe other nations off the face of the earth.  But, for now, they are correct in believing they can get away with it....and get an apology for America having made them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to make something clear, you piss poor, excrement filled excuse for a human being:
> 
> we DO have a president, and no amount of fucked up unicornland illusions on your part is going to change that.
> 
> Now, go fuck yourself, you disgusting turdball.
Click to expand...



Haven't you heard? 

The Republican party isn't responsible for what they do. 

Its Obama's fault that we have traitors in the Repub party. 

Its Obama's fault that the Rs want to scuttle the US. 

Its Obama's fault that they have fought so hard against US job creation and US economic recovery. 

Darn that mean old Obama for forcing the Repubs and the damn stupid RWs for hating their own country so much that they want the rest of the world to point and laugh. 

If not that, this letter proves, once and for all, that its not the best interests of the US that the slimy, traitorous Rs have in mind.


----------



## HenryBHough

It takes so little these days to get liberals panties all of a twist.

There no longer being any U.S. Constitution how can anyone believe that mere laws have any importance?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

HenryBHough said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on 2016 - so we can get these un-American treasonous bastards out of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem convinced Obama will leave the White House willingly!  I admire your sense of the ridiculous.
Click to expand...


No reason to think otherwise but he's not the one obstructing jobs and economic recovery and just, in general screwing over the US.

And, he didn't write a letter telling Iran and every other country that the US is theirs for the picking. 

Nope, that was the Repubs. 

Fucking traitors, just like you.


----------



## NYcarbineer

One can only hope that if this country is ever again cursed with a Republican president that the Democrats in Congress show the courage to bury him in every bit as much obstructionism as the GOP has done to Presidnt Obama over the last 6 years.

If nothing else, the inevitable hypocrisy of the RWnuts that it produces will be most entertaining.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

orogenicman said:


> The Republicans have clearly gone too far.
> 
> Tom Cotton Denies GOP Letter Undermines Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “This letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States, but our allies. This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite.
> 
> “Today's unprecedented letter originated by a United States senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago,” Reid said. “As a kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope that they do it sooner, rather than leader.”
Click to expand...


Slap a Medal on him and throw that man a PARADE!  Tom Cotton is a true American here!  Running the offense to scuttle the subversive policy relative to obama's indigenous status... .

(The Left hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality that obama is no longer relevant.)


----------



## Luddly Neddite

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *“The judgment of my Republican colleagues seems to be clouded by their abhorrence of President Obama. The Republican senators sent a letter to the Iranian leadership aimed at sabotaging these negotiations,” Reid said. “It’s unprecedented for one political party to directly intervene in an international negotiation with the sole goal of embarrassing the president.”*
> 
> 
> more...
> 
> Harry Reid blasts GOP s Iran letter Hard slap in the face - Burgess Everett - POLITICO




Reid was being very generous. 

Everything they have done for many years now has been geared to two things - undermining US strength and standing on the world stage and increasing hiring from other countries. 

There are US citizens who agree with this and gladly support it with their votes. 

Anyone who does not see this basic truth need only to read a thread on the Constitution, labor, rights of ordinary Americans, minimum wage, illegal immigration or any of the other so-called R/L issues.

Hell, ask the nutter RWs what the difference is between "occupy" and the damn fool tee potties or read just one of the idiot threads by the burfur nutters. 

Radical RWs will always post/vote against the Constitution and against the US. They'll tell you they are in favor of smaller govt but they're always in favor of more and more laws and total control of American lives.

Let the true Conservatives stay but I'd like to round the radical RW assholes up and ship them all to Russia.


----------



## orogenicman

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


Some might consider what was done as tantamount to treason.  I think it is clear that treason was committed.


----------



## occupied

Doing things to undermine our country on behalf of another country (Israel) is a textbook definition of treason.


----------



## Lakhota

HenryBHough said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on 2016 - so we can get these un-American treasonous bastards out of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem convinced Obama will leave the White House willingly!  I admire your sense of the ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Yeah, we used to say the same thing about Bush.


----------



## orogenicman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans have clearly gone too far.
> 
> Tom Cotton Denies GOP Letter Undermines Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “This letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States, but our allies. This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite.
> 
> “Today's unprecedented letter originated by a United States senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago,” Reid said. “As a kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope that they do it sooner, rather than leader.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slap a Medal on him and throw that man a PARADE!  Tom Cotton is a true American here!  Running the offense to scuttle the subversive policy relative to obama's indigenous status... .
> 
> (The Left hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality that obama is no longer relevant.)
Click to expand...


The right has clearly stepped over the line from "patriotism" to treason.


----------



## Lakhota

What were these Senators trying to do:
1. Help Israel?
2. Hatred for Obama?
3. Both?


----------



## orogenicman

Luddly Neddite said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If America really had a president there would have been no need to tell Iran anything.  They'd have understood they weren't free to wipe other nations off the face of the earth.  But, for now, they are correct in believing they can get away with it....and get an apology for America having made them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to make something clear, you piss poor, excrement filled excuse for a human being:
> 
> we DO have a president, and no amount of fucked up unicornland illusions on your part is going to change that.
> 
> Now, go fuck yourself, you disgusting turdball.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't you heard?
> 
> The Republican party isn't responsible for what they do.
> 
> Its Obama's fault that we have traitors in the Repub party.
> 
> Its Obama's fault that the Rs want to scuttle the US.
> 
> Its Obama's fault that they have fought so hard against US job creation and US economic recovery.
> 
> Darn that mean old Obama for forcing the Repubs and the damn stupid RWs for hating their own country so much that they want the rest of the world to point and laugh.
> 
> If not that, this letter proves, once and for all, that its not the best interests of the US that the slimy, traitorous Rs have in mind.
Click to expand...


To say nothing of the fact that Obama was elected (twice) by the American people to be their commander in chief.  And they have done nothing but subvert that command and the will of the people from day one.  Some would call that treason.


----------



## Dot Com

Republicans should enlist instead of fluffing defense contractors for $$$ & promises of future employment. That, and their 2nd reason to do everything they can to undermine our proud twp- term  President

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


----------



## nodoginnafight

Partisanship has taken over everything.  It's a sad state of affairs. We the people must demand that our elected representative start working for us rather than their party. If we allow hyper-partisanship to destroy our nation, then we will have gotten exactly what we deserve.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

occupied said:


> Doing things to undermine our country on behalf of another country (Israel) is a textbook definition of treason.



ROFLMNAO!  Says an Advocate of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... . 


Now THAT is _Hysterical..._


----------



## MACAULAY

I sure am proud of Cotton and the other Senators who are standing up for over 70% of the American people who are scared to death of the deal these fools (Obama And Kerry)....in their desperation for a Legacy...are going to make with religious lunatics who have been cheating each other trading rugs for 2500 years.

The deal should be submitted to Congress...Obama plans not to do so....Fuck Obama.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

orogenicman said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans have clearly gone too far.
> 
> Tom Cotton Denies GOP Letter Undermines Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “This letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States, but our allies. This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite.
> 
> “Today's unprecedented letter originated by a United States senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago,” Reid said. “As a kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope that they do it sooner, rather than leader.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slap a Medal on him and throw that man a PARADE!  Tom Cotton is a true American here!  Running the offense to scuttle the subversive policy relative to obama's indigenous status... .
> 
> (The Left hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality that obama is no longer relevant.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right has clearly stepped over the line from "patriotism" to treason.
Click to expand...


Let me be clear... As no less an authority than a Moderator on this very site recently noted:
*
THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.
*​The Obama cult and the Ideological Left are wholly subversive to the United States... and there is not an American alive on this planet with a scintilla of loyalty to obama, or his pervse fuckin' cult.

Got that Komrade Karl?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

deltex1 said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If America really had a president there would have been no need to tell Iran anything.  They'd have understood they weren't free to wipe other nations off the face of the earth.  But, for now, they are correct in believing they can get away with it....and get an apology for America having made them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently obama had a smidgen of room in his ass after the Bibi insertion.
Click to expand...

Bibi is ByeBye...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


*So... you're saying that there are 47 Americans in the Senate?*

*Huh... I wouldn't have put it anywhere NEAR that high.*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Obama mocks Republican letter to Iran over nuclear talks*
BBC News - Obama mocks Republican letter to Iran over nuclear talks 

US President Barack Obama has criticized a letter from Republican senators to Iran, accusing them of "interfering" in ongoing nuclear talks. 

He said the 47 senators made an "unusual coalition" with Iran's hard-line religious leaders.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

TyroneSlothrop said:


> He said the 47 senators made an "unusual coalition" with Iran's hard-line religious leaders.


That's no shock as they are part of the American Taliban.  Same ignorant mentality.


----------



## Zander

Wry Catcher said:


> LOGAN ACT
> 
> *§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.*
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
> 
> Well, if 47 Republican Senators go to jail, the Democrats will be in control.  I wonder if McConnell signed the letter?



Keep smoking that dope!! 

US Constitution:

Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...


----------



## JakeStarkey

The president make treaties, kid, not the Senate.  The Senators can advise and consent (or not), nothing more.  The Senators' letter was inv iolation of the law.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.



ROFLMNAO!  
Imagine an irony SO SWEET, that Leftists try to assert that Americans are traitors to the United States!

LMNAO!

Oh GOD!  Now *THAT* is..._ ADORABLE!_


----------



## deltex1

PaintMyHouse said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> If America really had a president there would have been no need to tell Iran anything.  They'd have understood they weren't free to wipe other nations off the face of the earth.  But, for now, they are correct in believing they can get away with it....and get an apology for America having made them do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidently obama had a smidgen of room in his ass after the Bibi insertion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bibi is ByeBye...
Click to expand...

Why don't you start a tracking tired on that proposition...


----------



## deltex1

JakeStarkey said:


> The president make treaties, kid, not the Senate.  The Senators can advise and consent (or not), nothing more.  The Senators' letter was inv iolation of the law.


Jake can't read.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

“So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.”

Sad but true.

And by doing so exhibit their collective ignorance and stupidity; this unwarranted interference by republican senators is clearly reckless and irresponsible.


----------



## Preacher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans have clearly gone too far.
> 
> Tom Cotton Denies GOP Letter Undermines Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “This letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States, but our allies. This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite.
> 
> “Today's unprecedented letter originated by a United States senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago,” Reid said. “As a kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope that they do it sooner, rather than leader.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slap a Medal on him and throw that man a PARADE!  Tom Cotton is a true American here!  Running the offense to scuttle the subversive policy relative to obama's indigenous status... .
> 
> (The Left hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality that obama is no longer relevant.)
Click to expand...

He doesn't need to be relevant he is the President of the United States and what he says goes. Only a true scumbag would want war over a peaceful solution that stops Iran from getting nukes.


----------



## Zander

The President is so reckless and irresponsible that the Senate felt compelled to write a letter. Tells you a lot about the lawless regime of Obama....maybe he can sign an executive order that abolishes the Constitution?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> LMNAO!
> _!_


Right-Wing Troll Notification System Test


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Right-Wing Troll Notification System Test...


_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


You snark is rudely linked to your being a stupid entitled white male conservative mother fornicator...accept this mother effer


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.”



Yes... but it wasn't to obama, it was to the people obama reports to... .   And they were tellign those douche-bags, that obama does not speak for the United States.  And that any deal obama makes with them, is a waste of paper or even server space, as it has no chance of becoming formalized as, the United States is never going to allow Iran to get Nuclear Weapons.

But int heir defense, that's because they're Americans and THAT is how we ROLL!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Without Reagan's Treason, Iran Would Not Be a Problem*

Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as heexplained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitorearlier this year, had successfully run for President on the popular position of releasing the hostages:

"I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign.... I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote.... Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking]."

Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr's help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.
But Carter underestimated the lengths his opponent in the 1980 Presidential election, California Governor Ronald Reagan, would go to screw him over.

Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaignworked out a dealwith the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election.

This was nothing short of treason. The Reagan campaign's secret negotiations with Khomeini - the so-called "October Surprise" - sabotaged Carter and Bani-Sadr's attempts to free the hostages. And as Bani-Sadrtold The Christian Science Monitor in Marchof this year, they most certainly "tipped the results of the [1980] election in Reagan's favor."


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> 
> 
> You snark is rudely linked to your being a stupid entitled white male conservative mother fornicator...accept this mother effer...
Click to expand...


OH!  A Re-Concession?  How sweet!
_
Your Re-Concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> But int heir defense, that's because they're Americans and THAT is how we ROLL!




Right-Wing Troll Notification System Test


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> But int heir defense, that's because they're Americans and THAT is how we ROLL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


OH!  RE-Re-Concession?

You should know that once you concede to the standing points, you're not required to continue to do so.  But it is very sweet of you to do so.

_Your RE-Re-Concession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted._


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> OH!  A Re-Concession?  How sweet!
> _._



sure sure wing nut...
Here  you go shit for brains ...oh have a nice post


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Odium said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans have clearly gone too far.
> 
> Tom Cotton Denies GOP Letter Undermines Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “This letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States, but our allies. This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite.
> 
> “Today's unprecedented letter originated by a United States senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago,” Reid said. “As a kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope that they do it sooner, rather than leader.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slap a Medal on him and throw that man a PARADE!  Tom Cotton is a true American here!  Running the offense to scuttle the subversive policy relative to obama's indigenous status... .
> 
> (The Left hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality that obama is no longer relevant.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't need to be relevant he is the President of the United States and what he says goes. Only a true scumbag would want war over a peaceful solution that stops Iran from getting nukes.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

Now THAT is_ ADORABLE!_


----------



## orogenicman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans have clearly gone too far.
> 
> Tom Cotton Denies GOP Letter Undermines Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “This letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States, but our allies. This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite.
> 
> “Today's unprecedented letter originated by a United States senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago,” Reid said. “As a kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope that they do it sooner, rather than leader.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slap a Medal on him and throw that man a PARADE!  Tom Cotton is a true American here!  Running the offense to scuttle the subversive policy relative to obama's indigenous status... .
> 
> (The Left hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality that obama is no longer relevant.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right has clearly stepped over the line from "patriotism" to treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me be clear... As no less an authority than a Moderator on this very site recently noted:
> *
> THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS.
> *​The Obama cult and the Ideological Left are wholly subversive to the United States... and there is not an American alive on this planet with a scintilla of loyalty to obama, or his pervse fuckin' cult.
> 
> Got that Komrade Karl?
Click to expand...


Except some of the moderators on this site, I have to say, are quite extremist in their views.  For you to say that there aren't any Americans loyal to Obama is not only false, it is delusional.  Take yer meds already.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender...



Here you entitled dumb fuck head...gave I reminded you to go fuck yourself?

*The Lyndon Johnson tapes: Richard Nixon's 'treason'*
Declassified tapes of President Lyndon Johnson's telephone calls provide a fresh insight into his world. Among the revelations - he planned a dramatic entry into the 1968 Democratic Convention to re-join the presidential race. And he caught Richard Nixon sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks... but said nothing.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> OH!  A Re-Concession?  How sweet!
> _._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sure sure wing nut...
Click to expand...


Oh my... we've a contender.  Now having served up your Fourth concession, you've only 3 more to go to hit the tie with the RECORD OF SEVEN CONCESSIONS TO THE SAME STANDING POINTS!

FINGERS CROSSED!  (I'm pullin' for ya buddy... it won't make ya any more relevant, but it is EXTREMELY ENTERTAINING!  What can be more pleasant than watching  the Left humiliate itself, while being blissfully ignorant of any sense that it is even HAPPENING!??)

Your RE-RE-Reconcession is Duly Noted and Summarily ACCEPTED!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> !
> 
> We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender...




what do you mean "we" white man ....
you are drawing a blank with your snark ...GOP fk boy


----------



## occupied

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing things to undermine our country on behalf of another country (Israel) is a textbook definition of treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Says an Advocate of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... .
> 
> 
> Now THAT is _Hysterical..._
Click to expand...

No really, that is the textbook definition of treason. Republicans sided with a foreign power against our president and is doing things to undermine him on behalf of Israel. There is just no way to make that seem noble and right, at least not to reasonable people, and the the fall out from this will be proof positive that they just do think before they do shit.


----------



## idb

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... but it wasn't to obama, it was to the people obama reports to... .   And they were tellign those douche-bags, that obama does not speak for the United States.  And that any deal obama makes with them, is a waste of paper or even server space, as it has no chance of becoming formalized as, the United States is never going to allow Iran to get Nuclear Weapons.
> 
> But int heir defense, that's because they're Americans and THAT is how we ROLL!
Click to expand...

At least they'll be more knowledgeable on The Constitution and international law now that the Iranian Foreign Minister has schooled them.
So it hasn't been a completely wasted exercise.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TyroneSlothrop said:


> you are drawing a blank with your snark ...GOP fk boy



ROFLMNAO!  TWO MORE TO TIE AND THREE TO BREAK THE CONCESSION RECORD FOR CONSISTENT CONCESSIONS TO THE SAME STANDING POINTS!

_Your RE-RE-RE-Reconcession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted!_


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

I accept white boy's surrender...


Where_r_my_Keys said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are drawing a blank with your snark ...GOP fk boy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  TWO MORE TO TIE AND THREE TO BREAK THE CONCESSION RECORD FOR CONSISTENT CONCESSIONS TO THE SAME STANDING POINTS!
> 
> _You RE-RE-RE-Reconcession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted!_
Click to expand...

I see your problemo


----------



## deltex1

Odium said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans have clearly gone too far.
> 
> Tom Cotton Denies GOP Letter Undermines Iran Nuclear Talks - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Let's be very clear: Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs,” Reid, D-Nev., said. “This letter is a hard slap in the face of not only the United States, but our allies. This is not a time to undermine our commander in chief purely out of spite.
> 
> “Today's unprecedented letter originated by a United States senator who took his oath of office 62 days ago,” Reid said. “As a kind of pettiness that diminishes us as a country in the eyes of the world. Republicans need to find a way to get over their animosity of President Obama. I can only hope that they do it sooner, rather than leader.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slap a Medal on him and throw that man a PARADE!  Tom Cotton is a true American here!  Running the offense to scuttle the subversive policy relative to obama's indigenous status... .
> 
> (The Left hasn't been able to come to grips with the reality that obama is no longer relevant.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He doesn't need to be relevant he is the President of the United States and what he says goes. Only a true scumbag would want war over a peaceful solution that stops Iran from getting nukes.
Click to expand...

What are you, nuts?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

occupied said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing things to undermine our country on behalf of another country (Israel) is a textbook definition of treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Says an Advocate of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... .
> 
> 
> Now THAT is _Hysterical..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No really, that is the textbook definition of treason. Republicans sided with a foreign power against our president and is doing things to undermine him on behalf of Israel. There is just no way to make that seem noble and right, at least not to reasonable people, and the the fall out from this will be proof positive that they just do think before they do shit.
Click to expand...


Article 3, Sec 3 of the US Constitution is the LITERAL definition of Treason.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."

Notice how the US Senate has not levied war on the US, and taken steps to DEFY THE ENEMY of the United States, by writing an open letter wherein they state in no uncertain terms that any attempt by the obama Cult to allow them to pursue Nuclear weapons, AN EFFORT WHICH DOES _"ADHERE TO THE ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT", _will never become formalized and any method used by the obama cult to formalize such will be overturned in the next administration.

Which is THE AMERICANS PRECLUDING THE MEANS FOR THE ISLAMIC INSURGENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE FROM INJURING THE US THROUGH HIS OWN TREASONOUS ACTIONS... which is* literally*, the exact opposite of treason.  
_
See how that works?_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TyroneSlothrop said:


> I accept white boy's surrender...
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are drawing a blank with your snark ...GOP fk boy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  TWO MORE TO TIE AND THREE TO BREAK THE CONCESSION RECORD FOR CONSISTENT CONCESSIONS TO THE SAME STANDING POINTS!
> 
> _Your RE-RE-RE-Reconcession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your problemo
Click to expand...


_Your  RE-RE-RE-RE-Reconcession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted!_


----------



## Plasmaball

outside of the retards who think this was a good idea. It is interesting how the partisans are playing this issue. Obama signs a EO on immigration and thats basically tyranny and treason per say. Yet this, what the GOP did is somehow not. the sad thing is there will be barely a stink about this because you dont have the rightwing derps crying their eyes out over some fake outrage of the day. 
this issue sums up the United states current political climate perfectly.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender...





Where_r_my_Keys said:


> _Your  RE-RE-RE-RE-Reconcession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted!_


----------



## Katzndogz

Then democrats have an obligation to declare that a state of open war exists between democrats and republicans.


----------



## HenryBHough

The upset this has caused liberals is refreshing.  

Please continue!


----------



## occupied

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing things to undermine our country on behalf of another country (Israel) is a textbook definition of treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Says an Advocate of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... .
> 
> 
> Now THAT is _Hysterical..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No really, that is the textbook definition of treason. Republicans sided with a foreign power against our president and is doing things to undermine him on behalf of Israel. There is just no way to make that seem noble and right, at least not to reasonable people, and the the fall out from this will be proof positive that they just do think before they do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 3, Sec 3 of the US Constitution is the LITERAL definition of Treason.
> 
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
> 
> Notice how the US Senate has not levied war on the US, and taken steps to DEFY THE ENEMY of the United States, by writing an open letter wherein they state in no uncertain terms that any attempt by the obama Cult to allow them to pursue Nuclear weapons, AN EFFORT WHICH DOES _"ADHERE TO THE ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT", _will never become formalized and any method used by the obama cult to formalize such will be overturned in the next administration.
> 
> Which is THE AMERICANS PRECLUDING THE MEANS FOR THE ISLAMIC INSURGENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE FROM INJURING THE US THROUGH HIS OWN TREASONOUS ACTIONS... which is* literally*, the exact opposite of treason.
> _
> See how that works?_
Click to expand...

Republicans want a war with Iran and are taking steps to make sure it happens. They may not be directly waging war on us but the end result is the same, we spend a trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to fight a war that didn't have to happen.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

orogenicman said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some might consider what was done as tantamount to treason.  I think it is clear that treason was committed.
Click to expand...



Absolutely. 

That RWs here are siding with it, as they have sided with Russia, just shows how vile the right has become.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender...


----------



## Plasmaball

HenryBHough said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on 2016 - so we can get these un-American treasonous bastards out of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem convinced Obama will leave the White House willingly!  I admire your sense of the ridiculous.
Click to expand...

but i dont admire your sense of stupid. he will leave just like everyone else has.


----------



## HenryBHough

Twist and shout libbies.  

Amusing how the treasonous acts of a putative president were to invisible to you.

And this?  

Pales in comparison.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Sadly, the _'contributor' _TyroneSlothrop has demonstrated their inability to overcome their sub-par intellect.  Such is so often the unfortunate circumstances for the Intellectually Less Fortunate... who are present only to deflect and distract... with no means to actually participate in the debate.

As a result they've been sentenced to live in ignore.  TTFE!  Tyrone... and say hi to the other idiots for me.

(It's SO SAD!  She was right on the cusp of breakin' the record.)


----------



## chesswarsnow

Sorry bout that,

1. At least some have the balls to stand for America, Obama is busy giving in to those who want us destroyed.
2. This is a start, much more needing to be done.
3. I know we have to let the negro end his term, otherwise the blacks will burn it down.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> As a result they've been sentenced to live in ignore.  TTFE!  Tyrone... and say hi to the other idiots for me.




*You quit trying to keep up because you are a weakling white Right winger who thinks treason is being American*...you are whipped..


----------



## HenryBHough

Plasmaball said:


> but i dont admire your sense of stupid. he will leave just like everyone else has.



He might.

But he might not.

Your faith is touching.

If he does let's hope he goes into exile as gracefully as did President Nixon.


----------



## HenryBHough

Poor little liberals, unable to deliver their rants without resorting to shouting.


----------



## Plasmaball

HenryBHough said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> but i dont admire your sense of stupid. he will leave just like everyone else has.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He might.
> 
> But he might not.
> 
> Your faith is touching.
> 
> If he does let's hope he goes into exile as gracefully as did President Nixon.
Click to expand...

hopefully he tosses you in that fema camp if he stays


----------



## idb

Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.


----------



## whitehall

Will democrats ever quit the freaking whining? I didn't see the word "treason" used in the article. If you are looking for an example of treason look no further than Harry Reid when he tried to impact the morale of the Troops when he told them "the war is lost" just before the Troop surge in Iraq. How about the time democrats chipped in and bought a $10,000 ad in the NY Times calling the commander of combat Troops in Iraq "betray-us"?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

idb said:


> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.



They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.

But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.
> 
> But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!
Click to expand...

Countries get to have weapons little man, even countries you don't approve of.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

idb said:


> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.


Peace and quiet hopefully.  A few less dead people.


----------



## idb

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.
> 
> But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!
Click to expand...

Really?
The US won't allow it?
What if the other signatories to the treaty disagree with the US' assessment when the time comes...Russia, China, Germany, UK, France?


----------



## idb

PaintMyHouse said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace and quiet hopefully.  A few less dead people.
Click to expand...

That makes for pretty boring tv news viewing.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

idb said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> Peace and quiet hopefully.  A few less dead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That makes for pretty boring tv news viewing.
Click to expand...

I prefer it that way.  There are better things to do with our blood and treasure.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.
> 
> But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Countries get to have weapons little man, even countries you don't approve of.
Click to expand...


HEY!  Look, _INSANITY_ has chimed in AGAIN!

It's always good to hear from the Intellectually Less Fortunate.

Of course in reality, Americans DO get to decide what countries get Nuclear Weapons... and we do not give a red rats ass, what the feminized Left feels about it, or how they _'unfair' _they feel it is.


----------



## orogenicman

Plasmaball said:


> outside of the retards who think this was a good idea. It is interesting how the partisans are playing this issue. Obama signs a EO on immigration and thats basically tyranny and treason per say. Yet this, what the GOP did is somehow not. the sad thing is there will be barely a stink about this because you dont have the rightwing derps crying their eyes out over some fake outrage of the day.
> this issue sums up the United states current political climate perfectly.



The Commander in Chief has a legal right and obligation to issue executive orders.  Every president has issued them.  How is that an example of tyranny or treason?  On the other hand, 47 members of Congress signed a letter to Iran with the expressed intent of undermining the constitutional authority of the executive branch to negotiate a treaty.  And in so doing, is giving aid to the enemy.  That is the very definition of treason.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

idb said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.
> 
> But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> The US won't allow it?
> What if the other signatories to the treaty disagree with the US' assessment when the time comes...Russia, China, Germany, UK, France?
Click to expand...


We don't care what the other countries say about it.  

If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, we'll destroy them... and if the UN tries to sanction us, we'll laugh an laugh and veto it... and get up the next morning, shower, shave and go to work... having rested assured that the lunatics of Iran's Islamic Cult can't send a Nuclear warhead to evaporate Tel Aviv.
_
See how that works?_


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.
> 
> But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> The US won't allow it?
> What if the other signatories to the treaty disagree with the US' assessment when the time comes...Russia, China, Germany, UK, France?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't care what the other countries say about it.
> 
> If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, we'll destroy them... and if the UN tries to sanction us, we'll laugh an laugh and veto it... and get up the next morning, shower, shave and go to work... having rested assured that the lunatics of Iran's Islamic Cult can't send a Nuclear warhead to evaporate Tel Aviv.
> _
> See how that works?_
Click to expand...

You really do live in a fantasy-world.


----------



## idb

PaintMyHouse said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.
> 
> But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> The US won't allow it?
> What if the other signatories to the treaty disagree with the US' assessment when the time comes...Russia, China, Germany, UK, France?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't care what the other countries say about it.
> 
> If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, we'll destroy them... and if the UN tries to sanction us, we'll laugh an laugh and veto it... and get up the next morning, shower, shave and go to work... having rested assured that the lunatics of Iran's Islamic Cult can't send a Nuclear warhead to evaporate Tel Aviv.
> _
> See how that works?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really do live in a fantasy-world.
Click to expand...

He really does...doesn't he?


----------



## orogenicman

whitehall said:


> Will democrats ever quit the freaking whining? I didn't see the word "treason" used in the article. If you are looking for an example of treason look no further than Harry Reid when he tried to impact the morale of the Troops when he told them "the war is lost" just before the Troop surge in Iraq. How about the time democrats chipped in and bought a $10,000 ad in the NY Times calling the commander of combat Troops in Iraq "betray-us"?





> After signaling last week that he will plead guilty to mishandling classified materials, former CIA Director David Petraeus will be sentenced on April 23, the U.S. Attorney's office in North Carolina announced Monday.



That Petraeus?


----------



## Plasmaball

orogenicman said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> outside of the retards who think this was a good idea. It is interesting how the partisans are playing this issue. Obama signs a EO on immigration and thats basically tyranny and treason per say. Yet this, what the GOP did is somehow not. the sad thing is there will be barely a stink about this because you dont have the rightwing derps crying their eyes out over some fake outrage of the day.
> this issue sums up the United states current political climate perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commander in Chief has a legal right and obligation to issue executive orders.  Every president has issued them.  How is that an example of tyranny or treason?  On the other hand, 47 members of Congress signed a letter to Iran with the expressed intent of undermining the constitutional authority of the executive branch to negotiate a treaty.  And in so doing, is giving aid to the enemy.  That is the very definition of treason.
Click to expand...

reread what i said


----------



## orogenicman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.
> 
> But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> The US won't allow it?
> What if the other signatories to the treaty disagree with the US' assessment when the time comes...Russia, China, Germany, UK, France?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't care what the other countries say about it.
> 
> If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, we'll destroy them... and if the UN tries to sanction us, we'll laugh an laugh and veto it... and get up the next morning, shower, shave and go to work... having rested assured that the lunatics of Iran's Islamic Cult can't send a Nuclear warhead to evaporate Tel Aviv.
> _
> See how that works?_
Click to expand...


And this is why people like you will never hold public office.  See how that works?


----------



## orogenicman

Plasmaball said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> outside of the retards who think this was a good idea. It is interesting how the partisans are playing this issue. Obama signs a EO on immigration and thats basically tyranny and treason per say. Yet this, what the GOP did is somehow not. the sad thing is there will be barely a stink about this because you dont have the rightwing derps crying their eyes out over some fake outrage of the day.
> this issue sums up the United states current political climate perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commander in Chief has a legal right and obligation to issue executive orders.  Every president has issued them.  How is that an example of tyranny or treason?  On the other hand, 47 members of Congress signed a letter to Iran with the expressed intent of undermining the constitutional authority of the executive branch to negotiate a treaty.  And in so doing, is giving aid to the enemy.  That is the very definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reread what i said
Click to expand...


I can reread it a dozen times, and my response would be the same.


----------



## Plasmaball

orogenicman said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> outside of the retards who think this was a good idea. It is interesting how the partisans are playing this issue. Obama signs a EO on immigration and thats basically tyranny and treason per say. Yet this, what the GOP did is somehow not. the sad thing is there will be barely a stink about this because you dont have the rightwing derps crying their eyes out over some fake outrage of the day.
> this issue sums up the United states current political climate perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commander in Chief has a legal right and obligation to issue executive orders.  Every president has issued them.  How is that an example of tyranny or treason?  On the other hand, 47 members of Congress signed a letter to Iran with the expressed intent of undermining the constitutional authority of the executive branch to negotiate a treaty.  And in so doing, is giving aid to the enemy.  That is the very definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reread what i said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can reread it a dozen times, and my response would be the same.
Click to expand...

im not saying what obama did was treason.


----------



## orogenicman

Plasmaball said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> outside of the retards who think this was a good idea. It is interesting how the partisans are playing this issue. Obama signs a EO on immigration and thats basically tyranny and treason per say. Yet this, what the GOP did is somehow not. the sad thing is there will be barely a stink about this because you dont have the rightwing derps crying their eyes out over some fake outrage of the day.
> this issue sums up the United states current political climate perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commander in Chief has a legal right and obligation to issue executive orders.  Every president has issued them.  How is that an example of tyranny or treason?  On the other hand, 47 members of Congress signed a letter to Iran with the expressed intent of undermining the constitutional authority of the executive branch to negotiate a treaty.  And in so doing, is giving aid to the enemy.  That is the very definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reread what i said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can reread it a dozen times, and my response would be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not saying what obama did was treason.
Click to expand...


I know.  I was responding to the people you were responding to.


----------



## Plasmaball

orogenicman said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> outside of the retards who think this was a good idea. It is interesting how the partisans are playing this issue. Obama signs a EO on immigration and thats basically tyranny and treason per say. Yet this, what the GOP did is somehow not. the sad thing is there will be barely a stink about this because you dont have the rightwing derps crying their eyes out over some fake outrage of the day.
> this issue sums up the United states current political climate perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commander in Chief has a legal right and obligation to issue executive orders.  Every president has issued them.  How is that an example of tyranny or treason?  On the other hand, 47 members of Congress signed a letter to Iran with the expressed intent of undermining the constitutional authority of the executive branch to negotiate a treaty.  And in so doing, is giving aid to the enemy.  That is the very definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reread what i said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can reread it a dozen times, and my response would be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not saying what obama did was treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  I was responding to the people you were responding to.
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> outside of the retards who think this was a good idea. It is interesting how the partisans are playing this issue. Obama signs a EO on immigration and thats basically tyranny and treason per say. Yet this, what the GOP did is somehow not. the sad thing is there will be barely a stink about this because you dont have the rightwing derps crying their eyes out over some fake outrage of the day.
> this issue sums up the United states current political climate perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Commander in Chief has a legal right and obligation to issue executive orders.  Every president has issued them.  How is that an example of tyranny or treason?  On the other hand, 47 members of Congress signed a letter to Iran with the expressed intent of undermining the constitutional authority of the executive branch to negotiate a treaty.  And in so doing, is giving aid to the enemy.  That is the very definition of treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> reread what i said
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can reread it a dozen times, and my response would be the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> im not saying what obama did was treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know.  I was responding to the people you were responding to.
Click to expand...

that was not clear...


----------



## OKTexas

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.



You lefties need to get your talking points straight, some say we have no business interfering with Irans internal business, and you're saying this is the most important negotiations our country is facing, which is it?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> LOGAN ACT
> 
> *§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.*
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
> 
> Well, if 47 Republican Senators go to jail, the Democrats will be in control.  I wonder if McConnell signed the letter?



Oh now THAT is _FASCINATIN'_...

I mean the contributor, a self professed proponent of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... and an unapologetic supporter of the Peasantpimp of the Union States, who APPOINTED JOHN KERRY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE... a man who *QUITE LITERALLY *'*without authority of the United States, directly commenced, carrying out correspondence AND intercourse with the foreign government of the government of North Vietnam, and the officers and agents thereof, in relation to the dispute with the United States , KNOWN AS THE VIETNAM WAR, AS A MEANS TO DEFEAT THE MEASURES OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein in 1970 "by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.

Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”

Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States.*
_
ROFLMNAO!
_
So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over US Senators openly writing to a hostile regime, that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... even as those in charge of such negotiations, ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR IN ANOTHER WAR, WHERE HE ALSO TOOK THE POSITION OF THE ENEMY OF THE US AT THAT TIME!

ROFLMNAO!

You cannot make this crap up!

We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Plasmaball said:


> im not saying what obama did was treason.



No?

Now the US Constitution defines Treason in the United States... 

Article 3. Section 3.
_*Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.*_

Now obama is establishing policy, which allows a nation vehemently hostile to the United States and, which is known to have attacked the United States, her interests and allies, to pursue Nuclear weapons; and in so doing obama is openly _*adhering to the enemies of the United States, giving them aid and comfort.
*_
*Please explain to the forum how you rationalize that he is not aligned with the specific terms of Article Three, Section 3 of the US Constitution.*


----------



## Dot Com

why don't repubs just throw a flag on the ground and dance on it in unison? they'll get the same response. What shit stains.


----------



## orogenicman

OKTexas said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lefties need to get your talking points straight, some say we have no business interfering with Irans internal business, and you're saying this is the most important negotiations our country is facing, which is it?
Click to expand...


Do you want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?  No?  What are our options?

1) Obliterating their nuclear capability and leak radiation all across central Asia, potentially killing and maiming tens of thousands, and leaving the Iranian countryside uninhabitable, creating an avoidable humanitarian crisis not seen since Chernobyl, or;

2) Negotiate with them to get them back in compliance with the NNPT?

I don't know about you, but I choose the latter.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Surrender in our times!  
No one does it better than The Left!



orogenicman said:


> Do you want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?  No?  What are our options?
> 
> 1) Obliterating their nuclear capability and leak radiation all across central Asia, potentially killing and maiming tens of thousands, and leaving the Iranian countryside uninhabitable, creating an avoidable humanitarian crisis not seen since Chernobyl, or;
> 
> 2) Negotiate with them to get them back in compliance with the NNPT?
> 
> I don't know about you, but I choose the latter.


----------



## OKTexas

orogenicman said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lefties need to get your talking points straight, some say we have no business interfering with Irans internal business, and you're saying this is the most important negotiations our country is facing, which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?  No?  What are our options?
> 
> 1) Obliterating their nuclear capability and leak radiation all across central Asia, potentially killing and maiming tens of thousands, and leaving the Iranian countryside uninhabitable, creating an avoidable humanitarian crisis not seen since Chernobyl, or;
> 
> 2) Negotiate with them to get them back in compliance with the NNPT?
> 
> I don't know about you, but I choose the latter.
Click to expand...


You seem to forgetting the third option, crushing them economically with organized international sanctions. That's what brought them to the table to begin with and your dumb ass dear leader started lifting them just to get them to sit down. A real leader would have told them the sanctions would be doubled if they refused to negotiate in good faith. He says even now there is only a 50/50 chance of a treaty, how fucking stupid is he?


----------



## orogenicman

OKTexas said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lefties need to get your talking points straight, some say we have no business interfering with Irans internal business, and you're saying this is the most important negotiations our country is facing, which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?  No?  What are our options?
> 
> 1) Obliterating their nuclear capability and leak radiation all across central Asia, potentially killing and maiming tens of thousands, and leaving the Iranian countryside uninhabitable, creating an avoidable humanitarian crisis not seen since Chernobyl, or;
> 
> 2) Negotiate with them to get them back in compliance with the NNPT?
> 
> I don't know about you, but I choose the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to forgetting the third option, crushing them economically with organized international sanctions. That's what brought them to the table to begin with and your dumb ass dear leader started lifting them just to get them to sit down. A real leader would have told them the sanctions would be doubled if they refused to negotiate in good faith. He says even now there is only a 50/50 chance of a treaty, how fucking stupid is he?
Click to expand...


I think you are twisting the facts here.

GOP warns Iran and White House - CNN.com



> That's because the agreement, with an end-of-March deadline for a framework, is based on the idea that Iran will benefit from a gradual lifting of sanctions that have hammered its economy in return for agreeing to freeze its nuclear program and intrusive inspections of its facilities.
> 
> Obama has the power to suspend some sanctions and to lift measures that were imposed by executive power and other international restrictions. But several of the most punitive measures, including some on Iran's financial sector, were imposed by Congress and can only be lifted by Congress, giving lawmakers leverage on the deal possibly years into the future.


----------



## OKTexas

orogenicman said:


> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OKTexas said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You lefties need to get your talking points straight, some say we have no business interfering with Irans internal business, and you're saying this is the most important negotiations our country is facing, which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons?  No?  What are our options?
> 
> 1) Obliterating their nuclear capability and leak radiation all across central Asia, potentially killing and maiming tens of thousands, and leaving the Iranian countryside uninhabitable, creating an avoidable humanitarian crisis not seen since Chernobyl, or;
> 
> 2) Negotiate with them to get them back in compliance with the NNPT?
> 
> I don't know about you, but I choose the latter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to forgetting the third option, crushing them economically with organized international sanctions. That's what brought them to the table to begin with and your dumb ass dear leader started lifting them just to get them to sit down. A real leader would have told them the sanctions would be doubled if they refused to negotiate in good faith. He says even now there is only a 50/50 chance of a treaty, how fucking stupid is he?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you are twisting the facts here.
> 
> GOP warns Iran and White House - CNN.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the agreement, with an end-of-March deadline for a framework, is based on the idea that Iran will benefit from a gradual lifting of sanctions that have hammered its economy in return for agreeing to freeze its nuclear program and intrusive inspections of its facilities.
> 
> Obama has the power to suspend some sanctions and to lift measures that were imposed by executive power and other international restrictions. But several of the most punitive measures, including some on Iran's financial sector, were imposed by Congress and can only be lifted by Congress, giving lawmakers leverage on the deal possibly years into the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Am I?

*Obama’s Iran capitulation*
*Just as sanctions force Iran to the table, the President capitulates*

*France called it a “sucker’s deal.” France was being charitable.*

*Obama s Iran capitulation - NY Daily News*


----------



## Katzndogz

Manonthestreet said:


> Iran just declared Baghdad its capital of their empire.


I thought you were joking.  You weren't. 

Iranian President s Adviser Iran Is An Empire And Baghdad Is The Capital Weasel Zippers


----------



## orogenicman

And yet the number of msm media who have picked up and reported this "stunning" achievement:

0


----------



## Mac1958

.

The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.

So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?

.


----------



## Billy000

It is absolutely sickening how much I hate republicans.


----------



## Statistikhengst

MACAULAY said:


> I sure am proud of Cotton and the other Senators *who are standing up for over 70% of the American people* who are scared to death of the deal these fools (Obama And Kerry)....in their desperation for a Legacy...are going to make with religious lunatics who have been cheating each other trading rugs for 2500 years.
> 
> The deal should be submitted to Congress...Obama plans not to do so....Fuck Obama.



No. That is a lie.

The GOP won in 2014 by 6 points, and *only 36% of the registered electorate* came out.

the GOP has only 54% of the Senate and most of those seats are from states, which, when combined, represent LESS THAN 50% of the US Population. Alone, the populations of the GOP's 8 smallest states is smaller than Los Angeles County alone. That makes for 16 GOP senators who represent states that are collectively smaller than the 2nd largest city in the USA.

So, no, your statement is statistically, factually, a lie. A bald faced lie.

No only that, what Tom Cotton did, he did just to set himself apart from the Freshman crowd. It is seditious at best and treasonous at worst, and even class-action lawsuits could be the result of these antics.


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LMNAO!
> _!_
> 
> 
> 
> Right-Wing Troll Notification System Test
Click to expand...


OMG, that is worth repeating:


----------



## Statistikhengst

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> “So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... but it wasn't to obama, it was to the people obama reports to... .   And they were tellign those douche-bags, that obama does not speak for the United States.  And that any deal obama makes with them, is a waste of paper or even server space, as it has no chance of becoming formalized as, the United States is never going to allow Iran to get Nuclear Weapons.
> 
> But int heir defense, that's because they're Americans and THAT is how we ROLL!
Click to expand...



Of course, you are completely wrong. But when were you ever right.

In areas of foreign policy, the POTUS DOES speak for the nation. That is what the Constitution says. End of story.

Lord, you are one stupid individual. How do you ever even make it to the breakfast table in the mornings?


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Without Reagan's Treason, Iran Would Not Be a Problem*
> 
> Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as heexplained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitorearlier this year, had successfully run for President on the popular position of releasing the hostages:
> 
> "I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign.... I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote.... Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking]."
> 
> Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr's help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.
> But Carter underestimated the lengths his opponent in the 1980 Presidential election, California Governor Ronald Reagan, would go to screw him over.
> 
> Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaignworked out a dealwith the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election.
> 
> This was nothing short of treason. The Reagan campaign's secret negotiations with Khomeini - the so-called "October Surprise" - sabotaged Carter and Bani-Sadr's attempts to free the hostages. And as Bani-Sadrtold The Christian Science Monitor in Marchof this year, they most certainly "tipped the results of the [1980] election in Reagan's favor."




Not to mention that it was RW son of a bitch Henry Kissinger who *begged* Carter not once, not twice, but *SIX times*, to please, pretty please let the Shah into the US for a heart procedure. As sooon as Carter relented, the US Embassy was stormed and the hostages were taken. It was also Righties who tried to get Carter so say no to Operation ARGO, but then he said yes. This proves that a Democratic president should NEVER take the advoce of Righties.


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> I accept white boy's surrender...
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are drawing a blank with your snark ...GOP fk boy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  TWO MORE TO TIE AND THREE TO BREAK THE CONCESSION RECORD FOR CONSISTENT CONCESSIONS TO THE SAME STANDING POINTS!
> 
> _You RE-RE-RE-Reconcession is Duly Noted and Summarily Accepted!_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see your problemo
Click to expand...



That would be a shitty position to be in.


----------



## mudwhistle

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

Republicans apparently acting like Democrats, but for different reasons. 
It's clear, btw, that Congress doesn't trust Obama.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're letting the six parties know that any agreement which potentially provides for Iran to secure Nuclear weapons is not going to be something the US is going to allow.
> 
> But in fairness... that's only because allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, is INSANE!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> The US won't allow it?
> What if the other signatories to the treaty disagree with the US' assessment when the time comes...Russia, China, Germany, UK, France?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We don't care what the other countries say about it.
> 
> If Iran gets Nuclear weapons, we'll destroy them... and if the UN tries to sanction us, we'll laugh an laugh and veto it... and get up the next morning, shower, shave and go to work... having rested assured that the lunatics of Iran's Islamic Cult can't send a Nuclear warhead to evaporate Tel Aviv.
> _
> See how that works?_
Click to expand...



Only, we DO care what our allies think.

You really are THAT stupid, now aren't you.  Just another worthless RWNJ troll who can barely find the bathroom.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .




Yepp.


----------



## Statistikhengst

mudwhistle said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans apparently acting like Democrats, but for different reasons.
> It's clear, btw, that Congress doesn't trust Obama.
Click to expand...



*No.* It's clear that Republicans do not trust Obama. They never have. So, SSDD. Republicans are, however, not all of Congress.

See how that works?


----------



## Camp

Even the Iranians are calling the letter writers assholes. They are mockingly pointing out that the letter writers do not understand the US Constitution and international law and calling the letter nothing more than poorly constructed propaganda.


----------



## Kondor3

Well, for better or worse, the Pubs have served notice that they plan to overturn much of Obumble's work, if they win in 2016.

That one event should be good for a few dozen million votes right there.

Increasingly, a larger and larger percentage of the Voting Public are looking forward to January 20, 2017.

And, in the meantime, trying to marginalize the Failed Messiah insofar as practicable, to minimize the damage that he can do, on the way out the door.

Obama has lost what little trust that much of the Nation once had in him.

It's what comes from Rule by Imperial Decree.


----------



## zeke

Kondor3 said:


> Well, for better or worse, the Pubs have served notice that they plan to overturn much of Obumble's work, if they win in 2016.





Yea, I think that was their objective in 2012 as well. Especially that pesky Omamcare. How'd that work out for them hateful Rethugs? Is that done yet? Or are they waiting till they overturn the illegal immigrant situation? How's that working out for them? 

But really, the IF they win part is the truth. Big IF.


----------



## Statistikhengst

orogenicman said:


> To say nothing of the fact that Obama was elected (twice) by the American people to be their commander in chief.  *And they have done nothing but subvert that command and the will of the people from day one.*  Some would call that treason.



As a clear example from the past:

The new START treaty, an extension of President Ronald Reagan's START treaty:

New START - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

It was signed on April 8, 2010 and went into force after ratification by the US Senate TEN MONTHS later, on February 5, 2011. The Republicans in the Senate made the President wait EIGHT AND ONE HALF months to ratify a document (ratification was December 22, 2010) that should have received 100 Senate votes quite easily. 

The original START treaty reduced nuclear missiles on both sides by 1/3. Ronald Reagan, the great Conservative icon, said that he hoped that when the the treaty was up for re-negotiation, that again the two superpowers would reduce their arsenals by 1/3, which is EXACTLY what NEW START did. START I was actually signed by then President George Bush, Sr. (41), in 1991, but it was Reagan's brainchild and he praised it to the high heavens. George W. Bush, Jr. (43) superseded START I with SORT on May 24, 2002. George W. Bush, Jr., to his great credit and over the objections of ultra-Conservatives in the GOP, actually reduced out stockpiles by 50% instead of by 30%, by 2007. I consider this treaty to be one of his greatest achievements. But there are also a couple of catches here. Read further.

But suddenly, for some reason, with a Democratic president in office, nuclear arms reduction became controversial among Republicans. My, how they must have hated Ronald Reagan! Because all Obama did was to speed up the start of the next round of reductions. The reductions from SORT were already completed on both sides by 2008 and the treaty was due to expire in 2012. Instead of waiting two years to start reducing stockpiles again, the President decided to re-open negotiations in 2010. What happened is that the Republicans waited until after the 2010 mid-terms, not wanting GOP voters to see a Republican ratify the execution of any treaty signed by a Democratic President.

Ratification of execution of a treaty requires a 2/3 vote. NEW START passed with only 71 votes in December 2010, just 4 votes above the bare minimum. 29 GOP Senators voted against a renewal of Ronald Reagan's dreamm. By contrast, the US Senate UNANIMOUSLY approved the SORT treaty under Bush 43, which, though  it reduced more of the stockpiles, did not not contain any specific verification or compliance provisions. NEW START does. So, in at least two ways, NEW START is a better treaty.

This is how much Republicans hate Obama and hate America. They were almost willing to throw Ronald Reagan's dream of a nuclear-free world out the window in 2010 just because they hate the black dude in the White House.  Which is why I would not put it past them to actually aid and abet a real enemy of the USA were it to mean that such would embarrass or harm the current President.

It has gotten THAT bad.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

_'no less an authority than a moderator"_ a quote from a white entitled punk a weakling ....,those who worship "authority" are ditching responsibility...this entitled white man "whereRmy keys" is of the same mind set as the assholes who sent a letter to Iran to sabotage the POTUS...this weakling cry baby "where Rmy keys" is of the same mind set as the Oklahoma white frat boys who thought they were entitled to show out with their bigotry.....I have no respect for the Senators that sent that letter  or that bum "whereRmykeys"


----------



## Wyatt earp

Statistikhengst said:


> MACAULAY said:
> 
> 
> 
> I sure am proud of Cotton and the other Senators *who are standing up for over 70% of the American people* who are scared to death of the deal these fools (Obama And Kerry)....in their desperation for a Legacy...are going to make with religious lunatics who have been cheating each other trading rugs for 2500 years.
> 
> The deal should be submitted to Congress...Obama plans not to do so....Fuck Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. That is a lie.
> 
> The GOP won in 2014 by 6 points, and *only 36% of the registered electorate* came out.
> 
> the GOP has only 54% of the Senate and most of those seats are from states, which, when combined, represent LESS THAN 50% of the US Population. Alone, the populations of the GOP's 8 smallest states is smaller than Los Angeles County alone. That makes for 16 GOP senators who represent states that are collectively smaller than the 2nd largest city in the USA.
> 
> So, no, your statement is statistically, factually, a lie. A bald faced lie.
> 
> No only that, what Tom Cotton did, he did just to set himself apart from the Freshman crowd. It is seditious at best and treasonous at worst, and even class-action lawsuits could be the result of these antics.
Click to expand...

Good student, you Finally found out we are not a democracy, you finally figured out the definition.of the UNITED STATES of america


----------



## Seawytch

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .



Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:

_"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.

Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Right-Wing Troll Notification System Test...they are all trolls from the Right wing


----------



## Wyatt earp

I hate to say this, but I agree this was a dumb Ass move , its like running to a teacher when as a child, when you Couldn't get your way, It Don't make no sense .


----------



## Wyatt earp

Seawytch said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
Click to expand...

With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map

I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.

But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

deltex1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The president make treaties, kid, not the Senate.  The Senators can advise and consent (or not), nothing more.  The Senators' letter was inv iolation of the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Jake can't read.
Click to expand...

Typical obstructionism from someone who wants the words to say something else.

They don't, bub.


----------



## Jarhead

G.T. said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.
> 
> 
> 
> U 4got?
Click to expand...

and as I debated it with others, I recognized that the letter really had no advantage and I made that clear. You just want to find fault in me, and I take pride in the fact that I have such an impact on your life. But you see, unlike you, I don't debate to be right. I debate to confirm I am right or recognize when I am wrong.

Now, that being said, my error was listening to CNN in regard to this situation. I was not aware, for example, that the President is not including congress in the details of the treaty and has not yet indicated that his plan is to present it to congress. To the contrary, it seems he plans on doing this unilaterally and treat it as an executive order as opposed to a treaty that follows the typical, constitutional process of requiring 2/3 senate vote to ratify it and have it considered the law of the land.

Now, if this is true, (and I don't know if it is yet), then the President is ignoring the will of the people for we overwhelmingly voted in republicans into the house and the senate to ensure the President does not push through an agenda that is not what the people prefer.

So, if, in fact, the president does not plan to have this treaty ratified, then the letter to Iran was necessary as we have a man giving them reason to believe they are signing a treaty, which, in fact, is nothing more than a gentlemen's agreement.

Ironically, if I had a son who was kidnapped by Iran, and I opted to pay them a ransom, I would be considered breaking the law for negotiating with a country that supports terrorism....yet the President of the United States has the right to negotiate with them and shake hands on a gentlemens agreement.

So does anyone know....is this a unilateral move by the president or does he plan to follow the constitutional process of ratification?


----------



## Desperado

bear513 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
Click to expand...


I have been paying attention to Iran about as long as you have and the one thing I have noticed is each time they said they wanted to wipe Israel off the map came only after an Israeli threat on Iran.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

How reasonable is the GOP on Iran ?  look at the GOP 2008 Candidate


----------



## orogenicman

18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments

Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code
Notes...

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.


bear513 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
Click to expand...


Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Last time we saw a treacherous knifing like the GOP Senators did with the letter to Iran was a week ago when our Ambassador to Korea was slashed...*


----------



## Jarhead

orogenicman said:


> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
Click to expand...

Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.

Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.

Just a thought.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, accused Republicans of trying to “sabotage” the nuclear talks.

“This bizarre, inappropriate letter is a desperate ploy to scuttle a comprehensive agreement and the chance for a peaceful resolution, which is in the best interests of the United States, Israel and the world,” Boxer said in a statement.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Jarhead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
Click to expand...

Even with a nuclear bomb or a number of Nuclear bombs they would  be destroyed...US and Russia had a MAD standoff even though each had thousands of Nukes...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.


----------



## orogenicman

Jarhead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
Click to expand...


Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.


----------



## Jarhead

JakeStarkey said:


> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.


From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.

As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?


----------



## Jarhead

orogenicman said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.
Click to expand...

Sure....and they most certainly don't want to use them or they would have by now. But if Iran has them, are you so sure Iran wont use them? And if they do, are you so sure Israel wont retaliate?


----------



## orogenicman

Jarhead said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
Click to expand...


Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?


----------



## Wyatt earp

|electric|foxy| said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?
> 
> There is a difference you know.
> 
> 
> 
> No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.
Click to expand...

 Have proof? And no blog links


----------



## Jarhead

orogenicman said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
Click to expand...

On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?


----------



## JakeStarkey

If it is a treaty, the President must submit it to the Senate for consideration, advice, and ratification.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Jarhead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
Click to expand...

Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'

I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.


----------



## orogenicman

Jarhead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure....and they most certainly don't want to use them or they would have by now. But if Iran has them, are you so sure Iran wont use them? And if they do, are you so sure Israel wont retaliate?
Click to expand...


The only country Iran has ever directly fought with since WWII in a war is Iraq, and then only because they were attacked first.  If Iran attacks Israel first, (and I suspect that if they did it would most likely be in retaliation for being attacked first, as their history has shown, something Obama is keen to prevent), of course Israel has a right to defend itself.  But if we keep them via the NPTT and a new negotiated settlement from building nukes in the first place so there would be no need for anyone to come to blows, why is that a bad thing?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

The Senate ratifies treaties with other nations.

Obama is not above the law no matter how many Obama knee-padders support him


----------



## orogenicman

bear513 said:


> |electric|foxy| said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?
> 
> There is a difference you know.
> 
> 
> 
> No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have proof? And no blog links
Click to expand...


Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post


----------



## Jarhead

JakeStarkey said:


> If it is a treaty, the President must submit it to the Senate for consideration, advice, and ratification.


And if it is not a treaty, and just a gentlemen's agreement, then it is a waste of time.

What is President Obamas plan with these negotiations? Does anyone know as fact whether or not he will seek senatorial ratification?


----------



## orogenicman

Jarhead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
Click to expand...


Because the only alternative would be to see Israel to start a wider, much more dangerous and deadly war.  And I know of no country that wants that to happen.

As for the Senate.  I doubt, once it is finished, assuming it ever gets finished, that the Senate will reject it.  And if they do, the Democrats will use that like a sledge hammer on the GOP in 2016.


----------



## orogenicman

Jarhead said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a treaty, the President must submit it to the Senate for consideration, advice, and ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> And if it is not a treaty, and just a gentlemen's agreement, then it is a waste of time.
> 
> What is President Obamas plan with these negotiations? Does anyone know as fact whether or not he will seek senatorial ratification?
Click to expand...


If it is a treaty, he has to submit it to the Senate.  On the other hand, if it is negotiations to get Iran back on track with the NNPT, he doesn't need the Senate's approval because the treaty was signed in the 1970s, and he's simply enforcing it.


----------



## asterism

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with a nuclear bomb or a number of Nuclear bombs they would  be destroyed...US and Russia had a MAD standoff even though each had thousands of Nukes...
Click to expand...


Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asterism said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with a nuclear bomb or a number of Nuclear bombs they would  be destroyed...US and Russia had a MAD standoff even though each had thousands of Nukes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.
Click to expand...

Israel has Submarines with Nuclear missiles there is no way Iran could attack Israel and continue to exist...its that simple ...


----------



## orogenicman

asterism said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately for us, the Iranian Prime Minister saw through these assholes:
> 
> _"in our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy. It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history. This indicates that like Netanyahu, who considers peace as an existential threat, some are opposed to any agreement, regardless of its content.
> 
> Zarif expressed astonishment that some members of US Congress find it appropriate to write to leaders of another country against their own President and administration. He pointed out that from reading the open letter, it seems that the authors not only do not understand international law, but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it comes to presidential powers in the conduct of foreign policy._​
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even with a nuclear bomb or a number of Nuclear bombs they would  be destroyed...US and Russia had a MAD standoff even though each had thousands of Nukes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.
Click to expand...


And visa versa.  Israel has nukes (and it's own homegrown extremists as well), and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asterism said:


> Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.



a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD

Mutually Assured Destruction


----------



## Jarhead

orogenicman said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the only alternative would be to see Israel to start a wider, much more dangerous and deadly war.  And I know of no country that wants that to happen.
> 
> As for the Senate.  I doubt, once it is finished, assuming it ever gets finished, that the Senate will reject it.  And if they do, the Democrats will use that like a sledge hammer on the GOP in 2016.
Click to expand...

So the senate will be compelled to approve it, even if they disagree with it, for the democratic party will spin their motivations and intentions during the 2016 campaign....very much like I see on this board..."The GOP wants war".....

So, in essence, the GOP sent that letter in an attempt to get ahead of the spin and rhetoric that will hit them during the 2016 campaign.

So...what we have is the following....

1) The President of the United States is acting as he is for political expediency of his party
2) The US Senate is acting as they are for the political expediency of their party

And all the while, they are doing this on the international stage.

And people wonder why our standing in the world has dropped dramatically?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

orogenicman said:


> And visa versa.  Israel also nukes, and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.


*Spotlight ? anyone and I mean anyone in the mainstream media who brings up Israel nukes will lose their job and their entire career....*


----------



## Wildman

Statistikhengst said:


> It is seditious at best and treasonous at worst,



*something the libertraitors are best at !!*


----------



## orogenicman

Jarhead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the only alternative would be to see Israel to start a wider, much more dangerous and deadly war.  And I know of no country that wants that to happen.
> 
> As for the Senate.  I doubt, once it is finished, assuming it ever gets finished, that the Senate will reject it.  And if they do, the Democrats will use that like a sledge hammer on the GOP in 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the senate will be compelled to approve it, even if they disagree with it, for the democratic party will spin their motivations and intentions during the 2016 campaign....very much like I see on this board..."The GOP wants war".....
> 
> So, in essence, the GOP sent that letter in an attempt to get ahead of the spin and rhetoric that will hit them during the 2016 campaign.
> 
> So...what we have is the following....
> 
> 1) The President of the United States is acting as he is for political expediency of his party
> 2) The US Senate is acting as they are for the political expediency of their party
> 
> And all the while, they are doing this on the international stage.
> 
> And people wonder why our standing in the world has dropped dramatically?
Click to expand...


I disagree.  The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war.  Full stop.  What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.


----------



## orogenicman

TyroneSlothrop said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And visa versa.  Israel also nukes, and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> *Spotlight ? anyone and I mean anyone in the mainstream media who brings up Israel nukes will lose their job and their entire career....*
Click to expand...


Well, that isn't exactly true, since the msm has, in fact, written on the matter many times.  The spotlight I was referring to was international inspectors.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'
> 
> I
> wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.
Click to expand...

 I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was


----------



## asterism

TyroneSlothrop said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD
> 
> Mutually Assured Destruction
Click to expand...

The key being "Mutually Assured."  Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side.  Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel.  Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.

The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.


----------



## BlackSand

orogenicman said:


> I disagree.  The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war.  Full stop.  What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.



Then you should read the article in the Daily News where they indicate the GOP members were Traitors even though the President's efforts have been irresponsible, ineffective, worthless or incompetent.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'
> 
> I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
Click to expand...

And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.


----------



## orogenicman

asterism said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD
> 
> Mutually Assured Destruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key being "Mutually Assured."  Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side.  Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel.  Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.
> 
> The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.
Click to expand...


First of all, Iran doesn't have any nukes, and is not expected to have the capability to build them for many years to come.  Their efforts are currently frozen and under international monitoring.  Secondly, Israel's nuclear capability is believed to be very robust, possibly as much as France's.  Thirdly, if Iran was seen as actually building one, they'd never get the chance to finish it.  And even if they did, they still have to figure out how to deliver it.  And since Israel's air superiority in the Middle East is second to no one's, the chances of it ever getting off the ground are virtually nil.  And even if they got one off the ground, Israel's nukes would come into play and turn Iran into so much radioactive slag.  You vastly underestimate Israel's capabilities, and overestimate Iran's abilities.


----------



## Care4all

Jarhead said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
Click to expand...

Is this the norm on these type of agreements?  Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?


----------



## orogenicman

BlackSand said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war.  Full stop.  What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should read the article in the Daily News where they indicate the GOP members were Traitors even though the President's efforts have been irresponsible, ineffective, worthless or incompetent.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I don't, as a rule, read conservative rags.


----------



## asterism

TyroneSlothrop said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And visa versa.  Israel also nukes, and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> *Spotlight ? anyone and I mean anyone in the mainstream media who brings up Israel nukes will lose their job and their entire career....*
Click to expand...


Really?

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic

The two authors seem to be currently employed.

R. Jeffrey Smith Center for Public Integrity
Douglas Birch Center for Public Integrity

Julian Borger is still working after writing this:
The truth about Israel s secret nuclear arsenal World news The Guardian

Can you point to anyone who has lost a job over bringing up Israeli nuclear weapons?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asterism said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD
> 
> Mutually Assured Destruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key being "Mutually Assured."  Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side.  Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel.  Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.
> 
> The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.
Click to expand...

you have misconceptions in my opinion  as to what a nuclear exchange would be like


----------



## Wyatt earp

orogenicman said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |electric|foxy| said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?
> 
> There is a difference you know.
> 
> 
> 
> No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have proof? And no blog links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

 It is still not proof but we all know she does, another thing I don't like about Iran is there drone and intercontinental missle program, this treaty does not address that, last thing we need in 10 years is Iran getting nukes and a ICBM to deliver it to New York city.


----------



## orogenicman

Care4all said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the norm on these type of agreements?  Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?
Click to expand...


Depends on what it is based.  If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.


----------



## rightwinger

We do not even have a negotiated agreement with Iran and Republican Senators are attempting to  sabotage negotiations

Republicans would rather side with the radicals in Iran than Obama


----------



## BlackSand

orogenicman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war.  Full stop.  What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should read the article in the Daily News where they indicate the GOP members were Traitors even though the President's efforts have been irresponsible, ineffective, worthless or incompetent.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't, as a rule, read conservative rags.
Click to expand...


I don't know if it is a conservative rag or not ... But they broke the story on their cover.
The only reason I know about what they wrote is because a flaming liberal here at USMB posted the cover.

.


----------



## asterism

orogenicman said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD
> 
> Mutually Assured Destruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key being "Mutually Assured."  Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side.  Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel.  Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.
> 
> The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, Iran doesn't have any nukes, and is not expected to have the capability to build them for many years to come.  Their efforts are currently frozen and under international monitoring.  Secondly, Israel's nuclear capability is believed to be very robust, possibly as much as France's.  Thirdly, if Iran was seen as actually building one, they'd never get the chance to finish it.  And even if they did, they still have to figure out how to deliver it.  And since Israel's air superiority in the Middle East is second to no one's, the chances of it ever getting off the ground are virtually nil.  And even if they got one off the ground, Israel's nukes would come into play and turn Iran into so much radioactive slag.  You vastly underestimate Israel's capabilities, and overestimate Iran's abilities.
Click to expand...


I don't agree with your analysis because it's too similar to the rationale used during the negotiations with Iran's ally, North Korea.  How did that one work out?


----------



## Jarhead

orogenicman said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |electric|foxy| said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?
> 
> There is a difference you know.
> 
> 
> 
> No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With regards to Israel and to the Jews, Iran over the 30 years I have been paying attention, has stated numerous times they want to wipe.off Israel off the map
> 
> I personally don't know of this is just propaganda because I know Iran has a big Jewish population and they are free in Iran to go to their house of worship.
> 
> But then again I grew up with the Iran hostage crisis, know that Iranian back thugs just took over Yemen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have proof? And no blog links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post
Click to expand...




TyroneSlothrop said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And visa versa.  Israel also nukes, and unlike Iran's program, there is no spotlight on that one.
> 
> 
> 
> *Spotlight ? anyone and I mean anyone in the mainstream media who brings up Israel nukes will lose their job and their entire career....*
Click to expand...

Huh? Israel and its Nukes have been discussed in the mainstream media for decades....although Israel has never openly admitted to them.


----------



## orogenicman

bear513 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |electric|foxy| said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?
> 
> There is a difference you know.
> 
> 
> 
> No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments
> 
> Current through Pub. L. 113-296, except 113-287, 113-291, 113-295. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
> US Code
> Notes...
> 
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> 
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> Iran has had decades to destroy Israel. It is noteworthy that in all that time they have not fired a single shot at the "evil Jewish state".  I vote that it is propaganda for internal consumption, and the Israelis are silly to pay any heed to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have proof? And no blog links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is still not proof but we all know she does, another thing I don't like about Iran is there drone and intercontinental missle program, this treaty does not address that, last thing we need in 10 years is Iran getting nukes and a ICBM to deliver it to New York city.
Click to expand...


We do know that Israel has nukes because they detonated one of the coast of South Africa a long time ago.  They also have the advanced technology to build them, and even have a nuclear-capable submarine.

As for their missile technology, one thing at a time.  You don't think Iran is going to negotiate everything at once, do you?  Why would they?


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'
> 
> I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
Click to expand...

 All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asterism said:


> Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic
> 
> The two authors seem to be currently employed.
> 
> R. Jeffrey Smith Center for Public Integrity
> Douglas Birch Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Julian Borger is still working after writing this:
> The truth about Israel s secret nuclear arsenal World news The Guardian
> 
> Can you point to anyone who has lost a job over bringing up Israeli nuclear weapons?



That is web based media ...Julian Borger is in the UK.. perhaps I should have said mainstream electronic media .....this is a fact:  Netanyahu came to the US to argue on a Nuclear Iran...at no time was  it discussed or mentioned in the electronic media that Israel has at least 80 nukes ...how do you explain that to yourself....


----------



## Jarhead

orogenicman said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the norm on these type of agreements?  Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what it is based.  If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.
Click to expand...

It does not take a year to discuss "enforcing" an existing treaty. If, in fact, that is what he is doing, he should be discussing such enforcement with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and congress......all he has to do with Iran is say "we plan to enforce the existing treaty"...and that takes all of one minute.


----------



## orogenicman

asterism said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the reason that worked is because of the sizes of the US and the then USSR.  A few missiles would not destroy the defensive capabilities of either nation.  However, a few nuclear missiles from Iran would eradicate Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a few missiles would not have been launched hundred and hundred of Nuclear bombs would have been delivered to targets ...It was Called MAD
> 
> Mutually Assured Destruction
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key being "Mutually Assured."  Neither side was able to unilaterally destroy the other side.  Thanks not the case in Iran vs. Israel.  Iran launches a few nukes, Israel responds, Israel is demolished, Iran takes a few significant hits and moves on.
> 
> The Cold War detente perspective doesn't fit here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, Iran doesn't have any nukes, and is not expected to have the capability to build them for many years to come.  Their efforts are currently frozen and under international monitoring.  Secondly, Israel's nuclear capability is believed to be very robust, possibly as much as France's.  Thirdly, if Iran was seen as actually building one, they'd never get the chance to finish it.  And even if they did, they still have to figure out how to deliver it.  And since Israel's air superiority in the Middle East is second to no one's, the chances of it ever getting off the ground are virtually nil.  And even if they got one off the ground, Israel's nukes would come into play and turn Iran into so much radioactive slag.  You vastly underestimate Israel's capabilities, and overestimate Iran's abilities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with your analysis because it's too similar to the rationale used during the negotiations with Iran's ally, North Korea.  How did that one work out?
Click to expand...


Iran is not North Korea.  NK is the most closed nation on the planet.  And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors.  Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

orogenicman said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |electric|foxy| said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oppose gay rights, or oppose a gay agenda stuffed down our throats and pushed on 5-8 year old children?
> 
> There is a difference you know.
> 
> 
> 
> No difference, supporting/promoting gay is gay too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you recall the old Charles Atlas ads in comic books? The big guy picks on the little guy and the little guy says "one day I will get back at him"...and then the little guy does the Charles Atlas isometrics and becomes bigger than the big guy and beats the crap out of him.
> 
> Now, that being said...Iran is saying "death to Israel" but they have not yet fired a shot because they know there is little they can do to beat Israels airforce. But once they have nuclear weapons? They will be the bigger guy.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that Israel has had nukes for decades (and the means to deliver them).  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have proof? And no blog links
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why is the U.S. okay with Israel having nuclear weapons but not Iran - The Washington Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is still not proof but we all know she does, another thing I don't like about Iran is there drone and intercontinental missle program, this treaty does not address that, last thing we need in 10 years is Iran getting nukes and a ICBM to deliver it to New York city.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We do know that Israel has nukes because they detonated one of the coast of South Africa a long time ago.  They also have the advanced technology to build them, and even have a nuclear-capable submarine.
> 
> As for their missile technology, one thing at a time.  You don't think Iran is going to negotiate everything at once, do you?  Why would they?
Click to expand...

We also know because of the sacrifices made by Mordechai Vanunu in exposing Israel nukes...he has served long prison sentences for that


----------



## orogenicman

TyroneSlothrop said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic
> 
> The two authors seem to be currently employed.
> 
> R. Jeffrey Smith Center for Public Integrity
> Douglas Birch Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Julian Borger is still working after writing this:
> The truth about Israel s secret nuclear arsenal World news The Guardian
> 
> Can you point to anyone who has lost a job over bringing up Israeli nuclear weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is web based media ...Julian Borger is in the UK.. perhaps I should have said mainstream electronic media .....this is a fact:  Netanyahu came to the US to argue on a Nuclear Iran...at no time was  it discussed or mentioned in the electronic media that Israel has at least 80 nukes ...how do you explain that to yourself....
Click to expand...


Because it is already a well known fact.  In other words, it isn't news.


----------



## Lakhota

We should all be appalled and embarrassed by the childish and treasonous behavior of these warmongering NaziCon Senators.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since they stated from the beginning that they disagreed with any negotiations with Iran, what would be the point in the president keeping them in the loop?  So they can tell him again and again what he already knows?
> 
> 
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'
> 
> I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution
Click to expand...

It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.


----------



## Lakhota

I totally agree with Vice President Biden.

Biden, who also serves as president of the Senate, Monday night blasted Senate Republicans in a long, angry statement for their letter to Iran's leaders, which he described as "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."

"In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country -- much less a longtime foreign adversary -- that the President does not have the constitutional authority to reach a meaningful understanding with them. This letter sends a highly misleading signal to friend and foe alike that our Commander-in-Chief cannot deliver on America’s commitments -- a message that is as false as it is dangerous," Biden said in a statement released by the White House.

"The decision to undercut our President and circumvent our constitutional system offends me as a matter of principle. As a matter of policy, the letter and its authors have also offered no viable alternative to the diplomatic resolution with Iran that their letter seeks to undermine," he added.

*Joe Biden Goes Ballistic On Senate Republicans: Iran Letter Beneath 'Dignity Of An Institution I Revere'*


----------



## orogenicman

Jarhead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the norm on these type of agreements?  Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what it is based.  If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not take a year to discuss "enforcing" an existing treaty.
Click to expand...


I know of none that hasn't taken at least that long.  Iran is not an easy country to deal with, and we have only recently begun direct negotiations.  It has taken time because they were starting from scratch.



> If, in fact, that is what he is doing, he should be discussing such enforcement with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and congress......all he has to do with Iran is say "we plan to enforce the existing treaty"...and that takes all of one minute.



And you know what is going on behind closed doors because...?

This entire thing with Iran has been about the NPPT ever since Bush was in office in 2002 when it was first discovered that they were enriching uranium.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lakhota said:


> We should all be appalled and embarrassed by the childish and treasonous behavior of these warmongering NaziCon Senators.


Sounds like Biden let loose on the little bastards.  Oh well, now Iran has just the excuse it needed to walk away.


----------



## JakeStarkey

What at a kick.  We have some on the far right discussing this issue as if they understand it.  The President is the branch of government who negotiates treaties, without help of Congress before it is submitted to Congress.  The Senate is responsible for ratifying the treaty.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asterism said:


> Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic



this is from your link above

Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic


Former CIA Director Robert Gates said so during his 2006 Senate confirmation hearings for secretary of defense, when he noted—while serving as a university president—*that Iran is surrounded by “powers with nuclear weapons,” *including “the Israelis to the west.” Former President Jimmy Carter said so in 2008 and again this year, in interviews and speeches in which he pegged the number of Israel’s nuclear warheads at 150 to around 300.

But due to *a quirk of federal secrecy rules,* *such remarks generally cannot be made even now by those who work for the U.S. government *and hold active security clearances. In fact, U.S. officials, even those on Capitol Hill, are routinely admonished not to mention the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal and occasionally punished when they do so.

The policy of never publicly confirming what a scholar once called one of the world’s “worst-kept secrets” dates from a political deal between the United States and Israel in the late 1960s. Its consequence has been to help Israel maintain a distinctive military posture in the Middle East while avoiding the scrutiny—and occasional disapprobation—applied to the world’s eight acknowledged nuclear powers.

*But the U.S. policy of shielding the Israeli program has recently provoked new controversy, partly because of allegations that it played a role in the censure of a well-known national-laboratory arms researcher in July, after he published an article in which he acknowledged that Israel has nuclear arms.* Some scholars and experts are also complaining that the government’s lack of candor is complicating its high-profile campaign to block the development of nuclear arms in Iran, as well as U.S.-led planning for a potential treaty prohibiting nuclear arms anywhere in the region.


----------



## asterism

TyroneSlothrop said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic
> 
> The two authors seem to be currently employed.
> 
> R. Jeffrey Smith Center for Public Integrity
> Douglas Birch Center for Public Integrity
> 
> Julian Borger is still working after writing this:
> The truth about Israel s secret nuclear arsenal World news The Guardian
> 
> Can you point to anyone who has lost a job over bringing up Israeli nuclear weapons?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is web based media ...Julian Borger is in the UK.. perhaps I should have said mainstream electronic media .....this is a fact:  Netanyahu came to the US to argue on a Nuclear Iran...at no time was  it discussed or mentioned in the electronic media that Israel has at least 80 nukes ...how do you explain that to yourself....
Click to expand...


Why do I have to explain a point that I don't agree with?  You are the one making claims about some conspiracy to keep people unaware of something that's very well known.

So nobody got fired for mentioning the Israeli nuclear program?


----------



## Jarhead

Care4all said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the norm on these type of agreements?  Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?
Click to expand...

It depends on what the President is doing. If, in fact, he is negotiating an agreement between himself and the leaders of Iran, then he does not need senatorial ratification....but then it is not a treaty and can not be enforced by the law as it is not a law and any funding for it would require congressional approval.

If it is a treaty, he (or a diplomat of his choice) will sign that treaty and then that treaty is presented to the senate for ratification. For a treaty to be ratified and considered law, it requires 67 votes of approval in the senate. The senate can decide to not vote at all o nit if they prefer and the treaty will sit in the senate until the senate majority leader opts to address it...and that can be 100 years down the road...or a month down the road.

Once the treaty is ratified by the senate, it is returned to the President for the final signature declaring it as law.


----------



## asterism

TyroneSlothrop said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is from your link above
> 
> Israel s Worst-Kept Secret The Atlantic
> 
> 
> Former CIA Director Robert Gates said so during his 2006 Senate confirmation hearings for secretary of defense, when he noted—while serving as a university president—*that Iran is surrounded by “powers with nuclear weapons,” *including “the Israelis to the west.” Former President Jimmy Carter said so in 2008 and again this year, in interviews and speeches in which he pegged the number of Israel’s nuclear warheads at 150 to around 300.
> 
> But due to *a quirk of federal secrecy rules,* *such remarks generally cannot be made even now by those who work for the U.S. government *and hold active security clearances. In fact, U.S. officials, even those on Capitol Hill, are routinely admonished not to mention the existence of an Israeli nuclear arsenal and occasionally punished when they do so.
> 
> The policy of never publicly confirming what a scholar once called one of the world’s “worst-kept secrets” dates from a political deal between the United States and Israel in the late 1960s. Its consequence has been to help Israel maintain a distinctive military posture in the Middle East while avoiding the scrutiny—and occasional disapprobation—applied to the world’s eight acknowledged nuclear powers.
> 
> *But the U.S. policy of shielding the Israeli program has recently provoked new controversy, partly because of allegations that it played a role in the censure of a well-known national-laboratory arms researcher in July, after he published an article in which he acknowledged that Israel has nuclear arms.* Some scholars and experts are also complaining that the government’s lack of candor is complicating its high-profile campaign to block the development of nuclear arms in Iran, as well as U.S.-led planning for a potential treaty prohibiting nuclear arms anywhere in the region.
Click to expand...


Yeah and people with active security clearances can't talk about Al Qaeda funding warlords in Somalia even though it's widely known.


Does Juan Cole still have a job?  This is what he said in the electronic media about Netanyahu's speech:

Netanyahu s Nuclear Informed Comment


----------



## BlackSand

orogenicman said:


> Iran is not North Korea.  NK is the most closed nation on the planet.  And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors.  Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.



The inspectors have been thrown out of Iran twice after locating secret facilities the Iranians were hiding.
That only goes to show that negotiating with the Iranians isn't a good idea.

Even the New York Times (hardly a "conservative rag") ... Indicates Iran is unwilling to participate in forthright negotiations that allow inspectors to actually inspect something.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/w...hreatens-retaliation-against-attack.html?_r=0

Quit living in la-la land ... And at least get on the same page with reality.

.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

BlackSand said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not North Korea.  NK is the most closed nation on the planet.  And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors.  Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The inspectors have been thrown out of Iran twice after locating secret facilities the Iranians were hiding.
> That only goes to show that negotiating with the Iranians isn't a good idea.
> 
> Even the New York Times (hardly a "conservative rag") ... Indicates Iran is unwilling to participate in forthright negotiations that allow inspectors to actually inspect something.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/w...hreatens-retaliation-against-attack.html?_r=0
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't.  Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asterism said:


> So nobody got fired for mentioning the Israeli nuclear program?



How do you explain to yourself how something so central to the issue that brought Netanyahu in front of our Congress* was never mentioned at all* .  That would be the issue of Nuclear Israel...it was absolutely a taboo to mention that ..can you site discussions in our electronic media of Israel...?
 what explains that phenomena ?


----------



## Jarhead

orogenicman said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the norm on these type of agreements?  Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what it is based.  If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not take a year to discuss "enforcing" an existing treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know of none that hasn't taken at least that long.  Iran is not an easy country to deal with, and we have only recently begun direct negotiations.  It has taken time because they were starting from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, in fact, that is what he is doing, he should be discussing such enforcement with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and congress......all he has to do with Iran is say "we plan to enforce the existing treaty"...and that takes all of one minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know what is going on behind closed doors because...?
> 
> This entire thing with Iran has been about the NPPT ever since Bush was in office in 2002 when it was first discovered that they were enriching uranium.
Click to expand...

you seemed to forget that I was responding to what you said.

If, in fact, all Obama is doing is letting Iran know that he plans to enforce the existing treaty, (as you said may be the case), such would not take a year. It is as simple as saying "we are enforcing the treaty"...

But, seeing as it has taken over a year, then it stands to reason that he is negotiating...meaning the terms of the existing treaty would be altered...making it a new treaty and subjecting it to the constitutional process of senate ratification.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

asterism said:


> Why do I have to explain a point that I don't agree with?  You are the one making claims about some conspiracy to keep people unaware of something that's very well known.
> 
> So nobody got fired for mentioning the Israeli nuclear program?


who in the electronic media mentioned Israel nukes?
*
If it is not a conspiracy well what explain no discussion in our media of Israel nukes...is that just some coincidence or something?*
Why Isn t Anyone Talking About Israel s Nukes 
*So when you click on the news and see Netanyahu talk about the dangers of a bad deal and the threat of a rogue nuclear state, understand that he knows what he is talking about. After all, his country is experienced in fooling inspectors and lying to the U.S. about its nuclear intentions. It, too, has stolen nuclear materials and broken numerous international laws to build a secret nuclear weapons lab and stockpile. If the emerging narrative about what actually happened in 1973 is correct, it has even engaged in nuclear blackmail to get its way. Given all this, one wonders if maybe Israel couldn’t teach Iran a lesson or two in this particular area of statecraft.*


----------



## orogenicman

BlackSand said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not North Korea.  NK is the most closed nation on the planet.  And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors.  Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The inspectors have been thrown out of Iran twice after locating secret facilities the Iranians were hiding.
> That only goes to show that negotiating with the Iranians isn't a good idea.
> 
> Even the New York Times (hardly a "conservative rag") ... Indicates Iran is unwilling to participate in forthright negotiations that allow inspectors to actually inspect something.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/w...hreatens-retaliation-against-attack.html?_r=0
> 
> Quit living in la-la land ... And at least get on the same page with reality.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The inspectors have been in Iran for at least a year, and have full access to their program.  No one has access to Israel's.

Your NYT article is three years old, dude.


----------



## BlackSand

PaintMyHouse said:


> Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't.  Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?



The sanctions are from the UN Security Council... Not the US President.
If you think the President has no business negotiating with Iran ... Then fine, he can shut up for all I care.

.


----------



## BlackSand

orogenicman said:


> The inspectors have been in Iran for at least a year, and have full access to their program.  No one has access to Israel's.
> 
> Your NYT article is three years old, dude.



They have full access to where they allowed to go ... Same as it has always been.
You are welcome to provide an opposing link.

.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

BlackSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't.  Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sanctions are from the UN Security Council... Not the US President.
> If you think the President has no business negotiating with Iran ... Then fine, he can shut up for all I care.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Good, now we're getting somewhere.  Iran, build your bomb and tell the US and Israel to go fuck themselves, it's none of their business.


----------



## Wyatt earp

JakeStarkey said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the flip side, since congress made it clear that they will not agree to any treaty with a terrorist nation, why does he insist on negotiating with them anyway? So they can tell him again what he already knows when he submits the treaty to the senate for approval and it is denied?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'
> 
> I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.
Click to expand...

 Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.

What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not

We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four


----------



## BlackSand

PaintMyHouse said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't.  Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sanctions are from the UN Security Council... Not the US President.
> If you think the President has no business negotiating with Iran ... Then fine, he can shut up for all I care.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, now we're getting somewhere.  Iran, build your bomb and tell the US and Israel to go fuck themselves, it's none of their business.
Click to expand...


The security council still has the sanctions on them ... And if you want to fight the UN over Iran's ability to make the bombs ... Knock yourself out.

.


----------



## orogenicman

Jarhead said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the norm on these type of agreements?  Has most of the other agreements been done by the executive office alone, in the past?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on what it is based.  If it is enforcement of the NPPT, he doesn't need Senate approval because that was ratified in the 1970s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It does not take a year to discuss "enforcing" an existing treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know of none that hasn't taken at least that long.  Iran is not an easy country to deal with, and we have only recently begun direct negotiations.  It has taken time because they were starting from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If, in fact, that is what he is doing, he should be discussing such enforcement with the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Justice and congress......all he has to do with Iran is say "we plan to enforce the existing treaty"...and that takes all of one minute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you know what is going on behind closed doors because...?
> 
> This entire thing with Iran has been about the NPPT ever since Bush was in office in 2002 when it was first discovered that they were enriching uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you seemed to forget that I was responding to what you said.
> 
> If, in fact, all Obama is doing is letting Iran know that he plans to enforce the existing treaty, (as you said may be the case), such would not take a year. It is as simple as saying "we are enforcing the treaty"..
Click to expand...


You are confused.  This all started in 2002 under G.W.  It has taken two administrations to get us to this point.  But it has been Obama, starting two years ago, who has actually made headway with the Iranians.  It took them nearly a year to even get them to  sit down at the table.  You don't ever enforce a violation of a nuclear treaty with the other guy by saying "we see your violation, comply or else".  That has never happened in the history of such treaties, and likely never will.  Imagine if Russia had said to the U.S. "we see your violation of the ballistic missile defense treaty.  Comply or else."  See how naïve your argument is?



> But, seeing as it has taken over a year, then it stands to reason that he is negotiating...meaning the terms of the existing treaty would be altered...making it a new treaty and subjecting it to the constitutional process of senate ratification.



The terms of the exiting treaty cannot be altered without discussion and ratification by the over 191 sovereign signatories to it. The negotiations is to get them back on track with the existing treaty, and to do it without bloodshed.  Oh, and in case you hadn't heard, it isn't simply a negotiation between Iran and the U.S.  Six nations in total are in direct involvement with these negotiations (including all permanent members of the UN Security Counsel).


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jarhead said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
Click to expand...

A president always signs a treaty unilaterally and BEFORE ratification. This is historical fact and standard procedure.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## orogenicman

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'
> 
> I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.
> 
> What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not
> 
> We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four
Click to expand...


The SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

BlackSand said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't.  Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sanctions are from the UN Security Council... Not the US President.
> If you think the President has no business negotiating with Iran ... Then fine, he can shut up for all I care.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, now we're getting somewhere.  Iran, build your bomb and tell the US and Israel to go fuck themselves, it's none of their business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The security council still has the sanctions on them ... And if you want to fight the UN over Iran's ability to make the bombs ... Knock yourself out.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Not my fight.  My fight is with Americans who think they can tell the whole fucking world what to do when they can't even fix their own roads and bridges.


----------



## orogenicman

BlackSand said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inspectors have been in Iran for at least a year, and have full access to their program.  No one has access to Israel's.
> 
> Your NYT article is three years old, dude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They have full access to where they allowed to go ... Same as it has always been.
> You are welcome to provide an opposing link.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Monitoring and Verification in Iran International Atomic Energy Agency


----------



## Wyatt earp

orogenicman said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not North Korea.  NK is the most closed nation on the planet.  And they abdicated the NNPT, while Iran has not, and is still being monitored by international inspectors.  Unlike NK, we know full well on the ground what Iran is doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The inspectors have been thrown out of Iran twice after locating secret facilities the Iranians were hiding.
> That only goes to show that negotiating with the Iranians isn't a good idea.
> 
> Even the New York Times (hardly a "conservative rag") ... Indicates Iran is unwilling to participate in forthright negotiations that allow inspectors to actually inspect something.
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/w...hreatens-retaliation-against-attack.html?_r=0
> 
> Quit living in la-la land ... And at least get on the same page with reality.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The inspectors have been in Iran for at least a year, and have full access to their program.  No one has access to Israel's.
> 
> Your NYT article is three years old, dude.
Click to expand...

 Iran signed the UN non nuclear pack (or what ever it is called)
Israel never signed if


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> If it is a treaty, the President must submit it to the Senate for consideration, advice, and ratification.


Yes. But he signs it first. The EXECUTION of said treaty first commences when the legislative bodies of the respective governments ratify. See: Bush / Gorbachev 1991, Bush / Putin 2003. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Look *Iran is trolling *the 47 percent (Heh heh heh a key %) traitor Senators

*Iran Calls GOP Letter 'Propaganda Ploy,' Offers To 'Enlighten' Authors*
- Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the U.S. lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" — a subject in which he is a professor — "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it co ... (NPR)


----------



## Dot Com

Mann & Ornstein were right, The repubs are no longer just "the opposition" they have gone beyond that. Sad part is their voters (94% white BTW) still run interference for their heinous actions


----------



## Wyatt earp

orogenicman said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
> 
> 
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.
> 
> What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not
> 
> We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch.
Click to expand...




PaintMyHouse said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there is no valid reason to negotiate, don't.  Just let them act like any other nation and build whatever they damn well please eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sanctions are from the UN Security Council... Not the US President.
> If you think the President has no business negotiating with Iran ... Then fine, he can shut up for all I care.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good, now we're getting somewhere.  Iran, build your bomb and tell the US and Israel to go fuck themselves, it's none of their business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The security council still has the sanctions on them ... And if you want to fight the UN over Iran's ability to make the bombs ... Knock yourself out.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my fight.  My fight is with Americans who think they can tell the whole fucking world what to do when they can't even fix their own roads and bridges.
Click to expand...

 We will continue to do so

Unless you build a 12 aircraft carrier battle fleet, state of the art, sorry you have only one vote


----------



## Dot Com

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Look *Iran is trolling *the 47 percent (Heh heh heh a key %) traitor Senators
> 
> *Iran Calls GOP Letter 'Propaganda Ploy,' Offers To 'Enlighten' Authors*
> - Zarif said he was astonished by the letter, saying it suggests the U.S. lawmakers "not only do not understand international law" — a subject in which he is a professor — "but are not fully cognizant of the nuances of their own Constitution when it co ... (NPR)


lol I know right? Republitraitors.


----------



## Statistikhengst

orogenicman said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it is a treaty, the President must submit it to the Senate for consideration, advice, and ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> And if it is not a treaty, and just a gentlemen's agreement, then it is a waste of time.
> 
> What is President Obamas plan with these negotiations? Does anyone know as fact whether or not he will seek senatorial ratification?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it is a treaty, he has to submit it to the Senate.  On the other hand, if it is negotiations to get Iran back on track with the NNPT, he doesn't need the Senate's approval because the treaty was signed in the 1970s, and he's simply enforcing it.
Click to expand...

Yepp. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Wyatt earp

orogenicman said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
> 
> 
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.
> 
> What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not
> 
> We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

 Yea but they can and have in the past overturned a presidents EO I think one of ikes was the last one, but that Don't mean the president has to abide by it.


----------



## orogenicman

bear513 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
> 
> 
> 
> All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.
> 
> What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not
> 
> We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yea but they can and have in the past overturned a presidents EO I think one of ikes was the last one, but that Don't mean the president has to abide by it.
Click to expand...


That's their job, to interpret the constitutionality of things.  That doesn't make them a fourth branch.  That was my point.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Only, we DO care what our allies think.



Do we?  Your Party Leadership just spent a MONTH Crying about our most relevant ally SPEAKING TO CONGRESS.

So where "WE" is defined as the people of the United States, "WE" know that your position is BS.

And where "WE" is defined as "Americans" and those who are aligned with American Principle... YOU and those aligned with YOUR REASONING, are irrelevant.

So which 'WE' are you using?


----------



## Statistikhengst

BlackSand said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  The President is genuinely trying to stave off a wider, more dangerous and deadly war.  Full stop.  What happens if the Senate Republicans stop his efforts is fair game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should read the article in the Daily News where they indicate the GOP members were Traitors even though the President's efforts have been irresponsible, ineffective, worthless or incompetent.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

If the Daily News is writing this, then the GOP is screwed, for the Daily News is an extreme RWNJ rag. Wow. ..

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Tom Cotton on the defensive over effort to 'make common cause with the hardliners in Iran'*

It seems like Sen. Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran is not getting the reception he expected, and now the Arkansas Republican is on the defensive. President Obama and Vice President Biden both condemned the letter—predictably enough—with Obama suggesting that the letter showed the 47 Senate Republicans who signed on "wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran" and Biden calling it "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."

Cotton had to expect that*. But he may not have expected the public pushback he's getting from the seven Senate Republicans who did not sign onto his letter:*

“It’s more appropriate for members of the Senate to give advice to the president, to Secretary Kerry and to the negotiators,*” [Sen. Susan] Collins *said. “I don’t think that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my distinguished and high ranking colleagues.”


----------



## Statistikhengst

rightwinger said:


> We do not even have a negotiated agreement with Iran and Republican Senators are attempting to  sabotage negotiations
> 
> Republicans would rather side with the radicals in Iran than Obama


Scary, nööö? 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Statistikhengst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not even have a negotiated agreement with Iran and Republican Senators are attempting to  sabotage negotiations
> 
> Republicans would rather side with the radicals in Iran than Obama
> 
> 
> 
> Scary, nööö?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Last time I saw something that scary was when Sara Palin was a candidate for VP


----------



## PaintMyHouse

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Tom Cotton on the defensive over effort to 'make common cause with the hardliners in Iran'*
> 
> It seems like Sen. Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran is not getting the reception he expected, and now the Arkansas Republican is on the defensive. President Obama and Vice President Biden both condemned the letter—predictably enough—with Obama suggesting that the letter showed the 47 Senate Republicans who signed on "wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran" and Biden calling it "beneath the dignity of an institution I revere."
> 
> Cotton had to expect that*. But he may not have expected the public pushback he's getting from the seven Senate Republicans who did not sign onto his letter:*
> 
> “It’s more appropriate for members of the Senate to give advice to the president, to Secretary Kerry and to the negotiators,*” [Sen. Susan] Collins *said. “I don’t think that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my distinguished and high ranking colleagues.”


That jerk slit his own throat, and that of everyone who signed this on this issue issue, hopefully for life.  It's time for him to learn there's a big dog in the room, and it ain't him.  Punk-ass POS.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

now Cotton has Obama "picking" on him...woooooo hooooo...Cotton picking Prez

It seems like Sen. Tom Cotton's open letter to Iran is not getting the reception he expected, and now the Arkansas Republican is on the defensive. President Obama and Vice President Biden both condemned the letter—predictably enough—*with Obama suggesting that the letter showed the 47 Senate Republicans who signed on "wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran"*


----------



## Statistikhengst

JakeStarkey said:


> What at a kick.  We have some on the far right discussing this issue as if they understand it.  The President is the branch of government who negotiates treaties, without help of Congress before it is submitted to Congress.  The Senate is responsible for ratifying the treaty.


The Senate is responsible for ratifying the execution of a treaty. There is a subtle but important difference.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## paulitician

The American Muslim President is just helping his Muslim brothers out again. Nothing surprising there. But that being said, Iran already has Nuclear capabilities. It's just playing the UN and the West now. Much like North Korea has. It's gonna get a nice sweetheart deal. You can bet American Tax Dollars will end up in Iran. But keep in mind, this isn't a done-deal yet. Congress does have a say in it.


----------



## orogenicman

paulitician said:


> The American Muslim President is just helping his Muslim brothers out again. Nothing surprising there. But that being said, Iran already has Nuclear capabilities. It's just playing the UN and the West now. Much like North Korea has. It's gonna get a nice sweetheart deal. You can bet American Tax Dollars will end up in Iran. But keep in mind, this isn't a done-deal yet. Congress does have a say in it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

* Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *

The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Not to mention that it was RW son of a bitch Henry Kissinger who *begged* Carter not once, not twice, but *SIX times*, to please, pretty please let the Shah into the US for a heart procedure. As sooon as Carter relented, the US Embassy was stormed and the hostages were taken. It was also Righties who tried to get Carter so say no to Operation ARGO, but then he said yes. This proves that a Democratic president should NEVER take the advoce of Righties.[sic]



WOW~  So Carter is responsible for Islam storming our Embassy in Tehran and taking the embassy staff hostage?  

Are you sure it wasn't the Bacon Carter had for Breakfast that mornin'?  

You know how Islam is offended by pork... so using your reasoning, they may have stormed the embassy, beat US Citizens and took them hostage because Carter didn't have enough respect for the Prophet to not eat those delicious slices of delectable pork?

Of course, either way, Carter was not responsible for the Iranians failure, Carter was only responsible for his failure to rescue those hostages, over any of the 444 days they were in captivity, until the day Ronaldus Magnus came to power, OKA: The hours just prior to Reagan having rescued them, if the Iranians had not found their chi and come around to appreciating the value of their own lives.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Zander said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOGAN ACT
> 
> *§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.*
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004).
> 
> Well, if 47 Republican Senators go to jail, the Democrats will be in control.  I wonder if McConnell signed the letter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep smoking that dope!!
> 
> US Constitution:
> 
> Article 2 Section 2 Clause 2: [The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...
Click to expand...


Wow, that spin won't turn.  This effort is your weakest yet; it is CrusaderFrank stupid.


----------



## JoeNormal

Signed by:

Senator Tom Cotton, R-AR
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-UT 
Senator Charles Grassley, R-IA 
Senator Mitch McConnell, R-KY 
Senator Richard Shelby, R-AL 
Senator John McCain, R-AZ
Senator James Inhofe, R-OK 
Senator Pat Roberts, R-KS 
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL 
Senator Michael Enzi, R-WY
Senator Michael Crapo, R-ID 
Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC 
Senator John Cornyn, R-TX 
Senator Richard Burr, R-NC
Senator John Thune, R-SD 
Senator Johnny Isakson, R-GA
Senator David Vitter, R-LA 
Senator John A. Barrasso, R-WY 
Senator Roger Wicker, R-MS 
Senator Jim Risch, R-ID
Senator Mark Kirk, R-IL 
Senator Roy Blunt, R-MO 
Senator Jerry Moran, R-KS
Senator Rob Portman, R-OH 
Senator John Boozman, R-AR 
Senator Pat Toomey, R-PA 
Senator John Hoeven, R-ND
Senator Marco Rubio, R-FL 
Senator Ron Johnson, R-WI
Senator Rand Paul, R-KY
Senator Mike Lee, R-UT 
Senator Kelly Ayotte, R-NH
Senator Dean Heller, R-NV 
Senator Tim Scott, R-SC 
Senator Ted Cruz, R-TX 
Senator Deb Fischer, R-NE 
Senator Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV 
Senator Bill Cassidy, R-LA 
Senator Cory Gardner, R-CO 
Senator James Lankford, R-OK 
Senator Steve Daines, R-MT
Senator Mike Rounds, R-SD
Senator David Perdue, R-GA 
Senator Thom Tillis, R-NC 
Senator Joni Ernst, R-IA 
Senator Ben Sasse, R-NE 
Senator Dan Sullivan, R-AK

Literally at who's who of low information dirtbags.


----------



## mudwhistle

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .


This is a reflection of Obama's deceptive activities since he's been in office. You don't know how he is when the cameras are turned off. You don't know the kind of lying and backstabbing he's pulled on members of Congress. You only know what has been reported. So basically he has sown the seeds of distrust. Nothing he does can be trusted... and this letter is a natural reaction to that.


----------



## paulitician

TyroneSlothrop said:


> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…



Yes by all means, let's praise brutal Iranian Mullahs now. Man, y'all Obamabots really have lost it. This is gonna be a kick-ass sweetheart deal for Iran. They already have Nuclear capabilities. So once again, the American Taxpayer is gonna get screwed. Taxpayer cash will end up in Iran.


----------



## Wry Catcher

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.”
> 
> Sad but true.
> 
> And by doing so exhibit their collective ignorance and stupidity; this unwarranted interference by republican senators is clearly reckless and irresponsible.


 AND Criminal!


----------



## Wyatt earp

TyroneSlothrop said:


> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…


 I dont care about International law..

But you are right about constitutional law so just a question?

Why Didn't Jane Fonda or john Kerry ever serve time in Prison?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*They do not fear the Logan Act ...last used in 1803 for prosecution .....*


----------



## paulitician

Remember people, Congress does have a say. The Communist Muslim Dictator may not think so, but it is so. This is not a done-deal.


----------



## irosie91

Penelope said:


> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deltex1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So treaties mean nothing to you.  And they mean nothing to iran.  So fuck iran.  Nuke em.
> 
> 
> 
> A treaty signed by a puppet of the US?  Yeah, that means nothing, at least it doesn't to the country who tossed out our puppet.  And no one is going to be nuking anyone.  That's not the point of this little game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is to bibi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever the little Jewish Nazi cares about I couldn't care less.  His Kosher butt is soon to be in a brine, of sea salt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if it isn't...we go to war...such will be the will of the Jewish nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't a jewish nation.
Click to expand...


True---the USA is not a jewish nation-----it is  THE LAND OF THE FREE AND 
   THE BRAVE.     The Legislative Branch of our government (the House)  is
   not RULED  by the Executive Branch  (the president)   In fact it acts as a counter-
   balance in our system of   CHECKS AND BALANCES.     I consider the letter to
   be------an attempt by the members of the HOUSE---to do a CHECK
   on the EXECUTIVE BRANCH-------and---actually of no earth shattering
   importance except to nuts who politicize incessantly


----------



## mudwhistle

bear513 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care about International law..
> 
> But you are right about constitutional law so just a question?
> 
> Why Didn't Jane Fonda or john Kerry ever serve time in Prison?
Click to expand...

Cuz they was liberiods?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

paulitician said:


> Yes by all means, let's praise brutal Iranian Mullahs now..



Let 47 traitors send the "brutal Iranian Mullahs" [ LOL] a letter to undermine the US POTUS instead eh.....


----------



## paulitician

TyroneSlothrop said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes by all means, let's praise brutal Iranian Mullahs now..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let 47 traitors send the "brutal Iranian Mullahs" [ LOL] a letter to undermine the US POTUS instead eh.....
Click to expand...


The Communist Organizer in Chief is the Traitor. To hell with him.


----------



## Synthaholic




----------



## Synthaholic

Sign the petition!

File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government


----------



## Wry Catcher

mudwhistle said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> The Bibi speech was borderline, but this letter is WAY the fuck over the line.
> 
> So now, what is ANY country supposed to think of ANY thing that ANY President does at ANY time?
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> This is a reflection of Obama's deceptive activities since he's been in office. You don't know how he is when the cameras are turned off. You don't know the kind of lying and backstabbing he's pulled on members of Congress. You only know what has been reported. So basically he has sown the seeds of distrust. Nothing he does can be trusted... and this letter is a natural reaction to that.
Click to expand...


You're not the source of truth, as anyone who has read your many posts knows.  You wouldn't recognize honesty if it smacked you in the face.  The reality is, if any Republican President had been treated by the opposition as twice-elected President Obama - your whine would be heard into the next solar system.

It's easy to lay claim on an anonymous message board of miss deeds of others, but the evidence is rarely presented.  For six years asshole like you have been on the attack and this President's record, by any measure, is far better than his predecessor.  

Assholes like you use the deaths of four American's for political purposes, yet seem to disregard and dishonor the 4,500 + killed and ten times that number wounded under the watch of GWB and the Republican Party.  Spin it as you please, rewrite current events & history all you please, but the facts are in graves and red ink for posterity.


----------



## Lakhota

Senator Tom Cotton looks and sounds like a fucking deranged NaziCon.  How much lower can Republican go?

*Tom Cotton Doesn't Give A Sh** About Iran Talks Protocol. But A Lot Of Others Do.*


----------



## Wry Catcher

Zander said:


> The President is so reckless and irresponsible that the Senate felt compelled to write a letter. Tells you a lot about the lawless regime of Obama....maybe he can sign an executive order that abolishes the Constitution?



The 47 scumbags violated the Logan Act, not that any criminal indictments are likely, they are culpable as are those who defend this deplorable action.

See:  Logan Act legal definition of Logan Act


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

rightwinger said:


> We do not even have a negotiated agreement with Iran and Republican Senators are attempting to  sabotage negotiations
> 
> Republicans would rather side with the radicals in Iran than Obama



ROFLMNAO!

So you're position is, as a person who represents themselves as an honest broker, coming ot debate the issue... that The "Radical" Islamists; which is the say the Islamists... in Tehran, are aligned with the 47 Americans in the Senate whose position is that the United States is not going to allow Iran to acquire the means to produce Nuclear Weapons?


LOL!  You can NOT make this crap up.

Imagine that contributor's weeping and gnashing of tooth if someone had accused them of 'believing' that the Islamists in Tehran, who have for years now and, who are currently pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, are aligned with the Americans in the US Senate, in PREVENTING IRAN FROM PRODUCING NUCLEAR WEAPONS! 

LMNAO!  Oh lordy, that is _ADORABLE!_


----------



## Wyatt earp

mudwhistle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care about International law..
> 
> But you are right about constitutional law so just a question?
> 
> Why Didn't Jane Fonda or john Kerry ever serve time in Prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cuz they was liberiods?
Click to expand...

 They have selective memory and are not old.enough or forgot about Hanoi Jane,
I guess


----------



## JakeStarkey

bear513 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, I think, he is telling the Senate 'you are not the boss of me', 'I am the Executive of all the people while you are elected by only one state,' and 'I can.'
> 
> I wonder if they President's real target is the ODS far right, and he is hoping for an explosion that will stain the whole GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.
> 
> What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not
> 
> We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four
Click to expand...


Only you are saying that, not me.  The President is the one responsible for making treaties, not the Senate; the Senate is responsible for ratifying treaties, not the President.  It is called separation of powers.


----------



## paulitician

I don't know why so many feel this deal is a done-deal. Congress will have a say. This deal very well may not happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Some of you do not understand separation of powers.


----------



## JakeStarkey

paulitician said:


> I don't know why so many feel this deal is a done-deal. Congress will have a say. This deal very well may not happen.


The President signs it, then it goes to the Senate, which may not ratify it.  The Senate, however, is not part of the actual deal making.  It is what it is.


----------



## irosie91

mudwhistle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care about International law..
> 
> But you are right about constitutional law so just a question?
> 
> Why Didn't Jane Fonda or john Kerry ever serve time in Prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cuz they was liberiods?
Click to expand...


are you sure you got that right?   It is not  LIBEROIDS  as in
HEMORRHOIDS?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Kerry and Fonda?  They were not tried because we did not have a declared war and the laws to enforce a declared war.  We had a flipping resolution, nothing more.


----------



## mudwhistle

irosie91 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care about International law..
> 
> But you are right about constitutional law so just a question?
> 
> Why Didn't Jane Fonda or john Kerry ever serve time in Prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cuz they was liberiods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you sure you got that right?   It is not  LIBEROIDS  as in
> HEMORRHOIDS?
Click to expand...


They're both a pain in the ass.


----------



## BlackSand

JakeStarkey said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why so many feel this deal is a done-deal. Congress will have a say. This deal very well may not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The President signs it, then it goes to the Senate, which may not ratify it.  The Senate, however, is not part of the actual deal making.  It is what it is.
Click to expand...


Here we are at each other's throats arguing over a deal that hasn't been made.
We (the United States) can wring our hands all day about whether or not we believe the deal should be negotiated with Iran.

I hate to say it ... But if Iran doesn't stop acting stupid about publically saying they want to wipe Israel of the map  ... Israel will turn them into a greasy spot.
Then we will go through the whole deal again figuring out what to do about Israel.

.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

BlackSand said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why so many feel this deal is a done-deal. Congress will have a say. This deal very well may not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The President signs it, then it goes to the Senate, which may not ratify it.  The Senate, however, is not part of the actual deal making.  It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we are at each other's throats arguing over a deal that hasn't been made.
> We (the United States) can wring our hands all day about whether or not we believe the deal should be negotiated with Iran.
> 
> I hate to say it ... But if Iran doesn't stop acting stupid about publically saying they want to wipe Israel of the map  ... Israel will turn them into a greasy spot.
> Then we will go through the whole deal again figuring out what to do about Israel.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


So we're going to have to figure out what to do with a nation who acts in its own self defense, which is its right to do so? 

What we do, in such cases is whatever we need to do, to help them do it.  Which is what those Senators DID... .


----------



## JakeStarkey

We need to stay within the separation of powers is what we need to do.


----------



## Wyatt earp

What's there to do about Israel? 

I kind of think she just wants to be left alone

Just a hunch


----------



## BlackSand

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> So we're going to have to figure out what to do with a nation who acts in its own self defense, which is its right to do so?
> 
> What we do, in such cases is whatever we need to do, to help them do it.  Which is what those Senators DID... .



I think people would be all kinds of upset if Israel decides to protect their own country ... And some people will want to punish Israel for doing so.
My comment was more focused at the fact I believe Israel has been pretty patient so far ... And I don't think they will allow it to go on forever.

What we do will depend more on who is in power at the time.
I just think it is foolish to believe that Israel will play nice forever.

.


----------



## JakeStarkey

If Israel destroys the Iranian nuclear development centers, who is going to interfere after the fact?


----------



## Wyatt earp

mudwhistle said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care about International law..
> 
> But you are right about constitutional law so just a question?
> 
> Why Didn't Jane Fonda or john Kerry ever serve time in Prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cuz they was liberiods?
Click to expand...




Where_r_my_Keys said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why so many feel this deal is a done-deal. Congress will have a say. This deal very well may not happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The President signs it, then it goes to the Senate, which may not ratify it.  The Senate, however, is not part of the actual deal making.  It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we are at each other's throats arguing over a deal that hasn't been made.
> We (the United States) can wring our hands all day about whether or not we believe the deal should be negotiated with Iran.
> 
> I hate to say it ... But if Iran doesn't stop acting stupid about publically saying they want to wipe Israel of the map  ... Israel will turn them into a greasy spot.
> Then we will go through the whole deal again figuring out what to do about Israel.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're going to have to figure out what to do with a nation who acts in its own self defense, which is its right to do so?
> 
> What we do, in such cases is whatever we need to do, to help them do it.  Which is what those Senators DID... .
Click to expand...

 those senators were acting in self defense of your grand kids,

But they Didnt follow the constitution and Neither does obama

So i guess it Doesn't matter anymore


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing things to undermine our country on behalf of another country (Israel) is a textbook definition of treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  Says an Advocate of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle... .
> 
> 
> Now THAT is _Hysterical..._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No really, that is the textbook definition of treason. Republicans sided with a foreign power against our president and is doing things to undermine him on behalf of Israel. There is just no way to make that seem noble and right, at least not to reasonable people, and the the fall out from this will be proof positive that they just do think before they do shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Article 3, Sec 3 of the US Constitution is the LITERAL definition of Treason.
> 
> "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court."
> 
> Notice how the US Senate has not levied war on the US, and taken steps to DEFY THE ENEMY of the United States, by writing an open letter wherein they state in no uncertain terms that any attempt by the obama Cult to allow them to pursue Nuclear weapons, AN EFFORT WHICH DOES _"ADHERE TO THE ENEMIES, GIVING THEM AID AND COMFORT", _will never become formalized and any method used by the obama cult to formalize such will be overturned in the next administration.
> 
> Which is THE AMERICANS PRECLUDING THE MEANS FOR THE ISLAMIC INSURGENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE FROM INJURING THE US THROUGH HIS OWN TREASONOUS ACTIONS... which is* literally*, the exact opposite of treason.
> _
> See how that works?_
Click to expand...


Methinks you're nuts, Keys.  Nothing else explains your behavior.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

BlackSand said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> So we're going to have to figure out what to do with a nation who acts in its own self defense, which is its right to do so?
> 
> What we do, in such cases is whatever we need to do, to help them do it.  Which is what those Senators DID... .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think people would be all kinds of upset if Israel decides to protect their own country ...
Click to expand...


Yup... 



BlackSand said:


> And some people will what to punish Israel for doing so.



Yup... But those people are saddled with a deviant strain of human reasoning... which is OKA: Evil.  And we don't give a red rats ass what those people want to do.  Our job as reasonable people is to stop them from doing it.




BlackSand said:


> My comment was more focused at the fact I believe Israel has been pretty patient so far ... And I don't think they will allow it to go on forever.



I agree... and I would add that having held Israel off, the US has injured Israel's means to defend itself, within reasonable risks, having further isolated Israel, politically... But in Fairness to the US, the US is presently governed by evil... so, that's to be expected.

It's just as unreasonable to believe that the Americans, among the citizens of the US, will allow evil to govern 'forever'.  And where it comes down to a fight, the Americans will side with Israel, over the evil that is presently governing the US.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

bear513 said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care about International law..
> 
> But you are right about constitutional law so just a question?
> 
> Why Didn't Jane Fonda or john Kerry ever serve time in Prison?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cuz they was liberiods?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why so many feel this deal is a done-deal. Congress will have a say. This deal very well may not happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The President signs it, then it goes to the Senate, which may not ratify it.  The Senate, however, is not part of the actual deal making.  It is what it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we are at each other's throats arguing over a deal that hasn't been made.
> We (the United States) can wring our hands all day about whether or not we believe the deal should be negotiated with Iran.
> 
> I hate to say it ... But if Iran doesn't stop acting stupid about publically saying they want to wipe Israel of the map  ... Israel will turn them into a greasy spot.
> Then we will go through the whole deal again figuring out what to do about Israel.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So we're going to have to figure out what to do with a nation who acts in its own self defense, which is its right to do so?
> 
> What we do, in such cases is whatever we need to do, to help them do it.  Which is what those Senators DID... .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> those senators were acting in self defense of your grand kids,
> 
> But they Didnt follow the constitution and Neither does obama
> 
> So i guess it Doesn't matter anymore
Click to expand...


I agree that the Senators were doing the right thing... and as a result of that, we can rest assured that they've not violated any sense of the US Constitution.


----------



## BlackSand

JakeStarkey said:


> If Israel destroys the Iranian nuclear development centers, who is going to interfere after the fact?



Like I mentioned ... I think it will have more to do with who is in power and who can gain political leverage arguing over Israel.
I don't think it would change the outcome ... My experiences in the Middle East have led me to believe Israel will take care of itself if necessary.

There is a difference in arguing here in the States ... And living on the edge of disaster.

.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> The 47 scumbags violated the Logan Act, not that any criminal indictments are likely, they are culpable as are those who defend this deplorable action.
> 
> See:  Logan Act legal definition of Logan Act



LMNAO!  The _LOGAN ACT?

*§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.*
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)._

LOL...

Oh now THAT is _FASCINATIN'_...

The Reader should recognize that the contributor cited above is a self professed proponent of _*Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle*_... and an unapologetic supporter of the Peasantpimp of the Union States, who APPOINTED JOHN KERRY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

Kerry himself, a 'man' who *QUITE LITERALLY *'*without authority of the United States, directly commenced, carrying out correspondence AND intercourse with the foreign government of North Vietnam, and the officers and agents thereof, in relation to the dispute with the United States , **KNOWN AS THE VIETNAM WAR*_*, AS A MEANS TO DEFEAT THE MEASURES OF THE UNITED STATES pursuing the defeat of the North Vietnamese Communists..., wherein,*_* in 1970 :*

*"by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.*
*
Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”

Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States.*
_
ROFLMNAO!
_
So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... even as those in charge of such negotiations, HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR IN ANOTHER WAR, WHEREIN HE  TOOK >THEN< AS HE IS TAKING _NOW_: ADOPTION OF, THUS ADHERENCE TO THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED HOSTILITY TOWARD THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES!

ROFL ...  You cannot make this crap up!

We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender... Reality is false, falsity is reality, down is up, up is down good is evil and evil is good... .

Which, at the end of the day, is just evil... doin' _what evil does._


----------



## Statistikhengst

orogenicman said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get your problem, you can not comprehend there is three branches of government, the president is not the executive of all people, he/she never was
> 
> 
> 
> And you prove the point.  You don't get it.  Yes, the president is the tribune, the executive, of all the people.  That's your problem, your ODS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you just posted says you are a ignorant asshat about the constitution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means I understand American political philosophy and the Constitution whereas you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again you are still posting like a ignorant fool.
> 
> What you are telling me the president is king or dictator, no he/she is not
> 
> We have three branches of government and if you count the Supremes that can and did in the past overturn a presidents Executive order we have four
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch.
Click to expand...


----------



## hazlnut

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...





They're a bunch of fucking children trying to play at a man's game.

Thank God Obama is our President and not some petty little man-child like Cruz and turtle-man.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_

The Advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle are marveling at _irrefutable *fact*_.


----------



## deltex1

O lord ...I fogot about the Logan act ...tha...t is....spec...zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## paulitician

The Republicans have the power. They can say no to this deal. It's in their hands for the most part. So don't just complain about it. Take action. Refuse to ratify it. Period, end of story.


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…




"The treasonous 47"

I bet good money that within a couple of months, a rock band will form with that name...


----------



## paulitician

hazlnut said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're a bunch of fucking children trying to play at a man's game.
> 
> Thank God Obama is our President and not some petty little man-child like Cruz and turtle-man.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but you would say that. You're a huge Obama buttsniffer, ain't ya? I'm pretty sure you would defend anything he does. Just a hunch anyway.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

hazlnut said:


> They're a bunch of fucking children trying to play at a man's game.
> 
> Thank God Obama is our President and not some petty little man-child like Cruz and turtle-man.



HEY LOOK!  It's an anti-theist and self professed nut, coming to thank the Creator of the Universe, who endowed those 47 Americans with the RESPONSIBILITY to write open letters warning those who have demonstrated hostility toward the US, having attacked the United States, her interests and allies for YEARS... that the efforts by the rogue administration to help them secure nuclear weapons, will not succeed and any guarantees made by that rogue administration, are not worth the paper they're written on, as such is a function of their RIGHT TO THEIR VERY LIVES... .

How cool is THAT?  Now THAT is what I call PROGRESS!


----------



## paulitician

Statistikhengst said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The treasonous 47"
> 
> I bet good money that within a couple of months, a rock band will form with that name...
Click to expand...


It's not 'treasonous.' This deal is actually in Republican hands. They don't have to ratify it. It's exactly how it's supposed to work. But we'll see what they do. Stay tuned.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Synthaholic said:


> Sign the petition!
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government




In the time it took me to verify my email address, the number of petitions rose by 520, in 45 seconds...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> Senator Tom Cotton looks and sounds like a fucking deranged NaziCon.  How much lower can Republican go?
> 
> *Tom Cotton Doesn't Give A Sh** About Iran Talks Protocol. But A Lot Of Others Do.*




When his gay lover scandal breaks, things are going to look different....


----------



## Wyatt earp

hazlnut said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're a bunch of fucking children trying to play at a man's game.
> 
> Thank God Obama is our President and not some petty little man-child like Cruz and turtle-man.
Click to expand...

 Lmao

Bet you are 18 and afraid of the draft


----------



## Statistikhengst

paulitician said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The treasonous 47"
> 
> I bet good money that within a couple of months, a rock band will form with that name...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'treasonous.' This deal is actually in Republican hands. They don't have to ratify it. It's exactly how it's supposed to work. But we'll see what they do. Stay tuned.
Click to expand...



What they did with the letter is absolutely treasonous, and this particular crime carries a jail sentence with it.


----------



## Care4all

I am so glad Senator Collins did not sign the letter!


----------



## paulitician

Statistikhengst said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Iran’s Foreign Minister Schools GOP Traitors on Constitution and International Law *
> 
> The Iranian may know the Constitution and international law better than the treasonous 47, but it seems he does not understand that in America, Republicans are not bound…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The treasonous 47"
> 
> I bet good money that within a couple of months, a rock band will form with that name...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not 'treasonous.' This deal is actually in Republican hands. They don't have to ratify it. It's exactly how it's supposed to work. But we'll see what they do. Stay tuned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What they did with the letter is absolutely treasonous, and this particular crime carries a jail sentence with it.
Click to expand...


Aw, boohoo for your Dictator wannabe. He doesn't need Congress, remember? Well guess what, he does. The Republicans have the power now. They don't have to ratify his bad deal. Now deal with that sucka.


----------



## Wry Catcher

chesswarsnow said:


> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 1. At least some have the balls to stand for America, Obama is busy giving in to those who want us destroyed.
> 2. This is a start, much more needing to be done.
> 3. I know we have to let the negro end his term, otherwise the blacks will burn it down.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas



Were you charged for the full brain wash?  Ask for some money back, you only needed a light rinse.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.

And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.

"_by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.

Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government._”

(Understand Reader, that according to Kerry himself, 'the two sides' were comprised of formal The North Vietnamese Government which was effectively at war with the United States and the Revolutionary arm of such which was also fighting US forces, toward the pursuit of defeating the United States so as to rob the people of South Vietnam the means to govern themselves.)

_“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”

"Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."_

ROFLMNAO!

So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and  aiding their means to injure the United States.


----------



## Wry Catcher

idb said:


> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.



"empty bluster" defines the conservatives to a 'T'.  It is the language of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio - charlatans and demagogues each.


----------



## Lakhota

Statistikhengst said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senator Tom Cotton looks and sounds like a fucking deranged NaziCon.  How much lower can Republican go?
> 
> *Tom Cotton Doesn't Give A Sh** About Iran Talks Protocol. But A Lot Of Others Do.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When his gay lover scandal breaks, things are going to look different....
Click to expand...


Gay lover?  I've heard those rumors.  Is it true?  Is he AC/DC?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.
> 
> And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.
> 
> "_by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
> 
> Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government._”
> 
> _“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”
> 
> "Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."_
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and  aiding their means to injure the United States.



Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago.  47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost. 

As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 1. At least some have the balls to stand for America, Obama is busy giving in to those who want us destroyed.
> 2. This is a start, much more needing to be done.
> 3. I know we have to let the negro end his term, otherwise the blacks will burn it down.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you charged for the full brain wash?  Ask for some money back, you only needed a light rinse.
Click to expand...


OH!  Now THAT is a lovely concession!
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
_


----------



## Edgetho

Wry Catcher said:


> Kerry was speaking as a young *wounded warrior* who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago.  47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
> 
> As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.



The traitor never shed a drop of blood his whole time in Nam.

He was advised to go home after his 3rd phony Purple Heart.

The man was a coward and a blowhard.  I know this for a FUCKING FACT.


----------



## Jarhead

Statistikhengst said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A president always signs a treaty unilaterally and BEFORE ratification. This is historical fact and standard procedure.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Actually, you are wrong. A treaty is signed before ratification by anyone the president appoints to do so. I have made that clear in many posts. The only time the presidents signature is required on a treaty is AFTER it is ratified by a 2/3 aye vote by congress.

Besides, we are discussing whether or not Obama plans to have this "agreement" ratified as a treaty...

So your post is useless.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior ...



Yes... but prior to his speech to the Fulbright Committee... which is to what you're referring

Kerry was speaking  DIRECTLY TO the Enemies of the United States, in a foreign nation, in a time of war... without consent of the US Government.  

He then returned TO the US, whereupon through speech which was identical to, thus an adoption of the policy of that enemy, he commenced an attempt to influence US policy toward swaying the people of the United States toward the ADOPTION OF THE OFFICIAL POLICY OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES.

Which, is a clear and otherwise incontestable violation of the very law which you YOURSELF cited... along with Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States, which defines Treason, in the United States.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are actually six parties in the negotations (not including Iran), I wonder what the signatories to this letter think they are achieving except empty bluster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "empty bluster" defines the conservatives to a 'T'.  It is the language of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio - charlatans and demagogues each.
Click to expand...


Reader, what you're witnessing above, is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Wry Catcher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no detail other than to realize how russia is maneuvering iran into it's proxy state by aiding it towards nuclear capabilities.  If you can't see that, you're as blind as a mole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there's no detail, you are simply a parrot; realpolitik is at play, not religion nor ideology.
> 
> Do some homework and consider how the proposed trans-Caspian gas pipeline might force Russian and Iranian cooperation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have but you'll carry on with your hackery and inability to understand oil/nat gas ministries in the region along with israel's natural gas fields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you.  I'm so impressed with your ability to post nothing of substance and nothing to suggest critical thought.  A skill well honed by your side of the aisle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't surprised that you couldn't comprehend the correlation of the oil ministries and their direct collusion with rogue states as it pertains to extracting natural resources. You really are that dumb. I thought you had a few cells up there to at least follow logical thought for a minute or two. Man, was I wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correlation does not imply causation, but I digress, what is the numerical correlation "of the oil ministries and their direct collusion with rogue states as it pertains to extracting natural resources."  Evidence required.
Click to expand...



It's right in front of you.  Russian oil ministries, iran running proxy wars with terrorists, russian aiding iran in nuclear capabilities.  You can't be this blind.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.
> 
> And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.
> 
> "_by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
> 
> Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government._”
> 
> _“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”
> 
> "Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."_
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and  aiding their means to injure the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago.  47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
> 
> As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
Click to expand...



He tried to right nothing other than his own self gratification.  He is no hero and a despicable yet disgusting human being for his actions against the US.


----------



## Faun

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 47 scumbags violated the Logan Act, not that any criminal indictments are likely, they are culpable as are those who defend this deplorable action.
> 
> See:  Logan Act legal definition of Logan Act
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LMNAO!  The _LOGAN ACT?
> 
> *§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.*
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.
> 
> 1 Stat. 613, January 30, 1799, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953 (2004)._
> 
> LOL...
> 
> Oh now THAT is _FASCINATIN'_...
> 
> The Reader should recognize that the contributor cited above is a self professed proponent of _*Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle*_... and an unapologetic supporter of the Peasantpimp of the Union States, who APPOINTED JOHN KERRY AS THE SECRETARY OF STATE.
> 
> Kerry himself, a 'man' who *QUITE LITERALLY *'*without authority of the United States, directly commenced, carrying out correspondence AND intercourse with the foreign government of North Vietnam, and the officers and agents thereof, in relation to the dispute with the United States , **KNOWN AS THE VIETNAM WAR*_*, AS A MEANS TO DEFEAT THE MEASURES OF THE UNITED STATES pursuing the defeat of the North Vietnamese Communists..., wherein,*_* in 1970 :*
> 
> *"by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.*
> *
> Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.”
> 
> Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States.*
> _
> ROFLMNAO!
> _
> So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... even as those in charge of such negotiations, HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR IN ANOTHER WAR, WHEREIN HE  TOOK >THEN< AS HE IS TAKING _NOW_: ADOPTION OF, THUS ADHERENCE TO THE POSITION OF THOSE WHO HAVE DEMONSTRATED HOSTILITY TOWARD THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES!
> 
> ROFL ...  You cannot make this crap up!
> 
> We are truly living in a Far-Side Calender... Reality is false, falsity is reality, down is up, up is down good is evil and evil is good... .
> 
> Which, at the end of the day, is just evil... doin' _what evil does._
Click to expand...

While I don't personally see a violation of the Logan Act by these 47 Senators, Kerry has absolutely nothing to do with this. But fear not, your failed attempts of deflection have been duly noted.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 1. At least some have the balls to stand for America, Obama is busy giving in to those who want us destroyed.
> 2. This is a start, much more needing to be done.
> 3. I know we have to let the negro end his term, otherwise the blacks will burn it down.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you charged for the full brain wash?  Ask for some money back, you only needed a light rinse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  Now THAT is a lovely concession!
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


You've become a cliche, I recognize being nuts (that is, challenged by reality) effects your judgments, making you incapable of responding in any manner other than to echo your earlier posts.  If you believe that is clever, see the parenthetical comment above.


----------



## Wry Catcher

LordBrownTrout said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.
> 
> And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.
> 
> "_by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
> 
> Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government._”
> 
> _“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”
> 
> "Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."_
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and  aiding their means to injure the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago.  47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
> 
> As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He tried to right nothing other than his own self gratification.  He is no hero and a despicable yet disgusting human being for his actions against the US.
Click to expand...


I was on active duty during the Vietnam War (1967-1969) and can assure you the opinions expressed by Kerry then were quite common among the military even that early.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Edgetho said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry was speaking as a young *wounded warrior* who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago.  47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
> 
> As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The traitor never shed a drop of blood his whole time in Nam.
> 
> He was advised to go home after his 3rd phony Purple Heart.
> 
> The man was a coward and a blowhard.  I know this for a FUCKING FACT.
Click to expand...


You do?  Well facts are easily cited, do it or be known as a LIAR!

Since you claim to know it, post the after action reports from each incident wherein Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart!


----------



## Lakhota

These treasonous saboteurs should face consequences for their actions.


----------



## mamooth

Dang. If even the extremely pro-GOP and and pro-Likud New York Daily News pointed it out, the treason must have been especially blatant.



Synthaholic said:


>


----------



## BluesLegend

AceRothstein said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have the ass backwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.
Click to expand...


Iran is a murderous thug terrorist state so negotiating with them would seem unwise. Look even other Democratic party leaders have said Obama's negotiating ideas with Iran are "naïve and dangerous".


----------



## Kondor3

zeke said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for better or worse, the Pubs have served notice that they plan to overturn much of Obumble's work, if they win in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I think that was their objective in 2012 as well. Especially that pesky Omamcare. How'd that work out for them hateful Rethugs? Is that done yet? Or are they waiting till they overturn the illegal immigrant situation? How's that working out for them?
> 
> But really, the IF they win part is the truth. Big IF.
Click to expand...

Agreed - although reversals were not attempted to either the ObamaCare and Immigration situations, with Pubs in control of both Congress and the Oval Office - which is, of course, their hope for 2016...

If the Pubs gain control of both Congress AND the White House in 2016, some of His Majesty's social re-engineering will be overthrown so frigging fast that it'll make our heads spin...


----------



## Kondor3

Statistikhengst said:


> ...This is how much Republicans hate Obama and hate America...


Nahhhhhh...

Like Democrats, the Republicans love America...

They just can't stand Obama, and they don't trust him to conduct the business of the Nation in its best interests, so...

Now that they've got control of the Legislative branch back in their hands, and given a variety of substantive Imperial Decrees in recent months, the Pubs are coming out swinging...

Doesn't mean they don't love America... they just don't believe in Obumble's vision for America... and are tired of seeing him undertake Social Engineering by Imperial Edict.

Big difference.


----------



## AceRothstein

BluesLegend said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have the ass backwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is a murderous thug terrorist state so negotiating with them would seem unwise. Look even other Democratic party leaders have said Obama's negotiating ideas with Iran are "naïve and dangerous".
Click to expand...

Who has said that besides the foreign policy loon John Bolton?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Jarhead said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead, the President has no duty to include the Congress in the deliberations or where they stand at any given time.  That is not how the Constitution reads.  The Senators interfered illegally in the President's constitutional duties.
> 
> 
> 
> From what I understand, the President wants to sign this unilaterally and without the approval (ratification) of congress. Again, I don't know if this is true, but if it is, then he is not following the proper procedure for treaty ratification.
> 
> As for the negotiations themselves, I agree. He does not need to consult congress. However, if he plans on getting senatorial ratification, would it not make sense to keep congress in the loop to ensure what he is working towards is something they would ratify?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A president always signs a treaty unilaterally and BEFORE ratification. This is historical fact and standard procedure.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you are wrong. A treaty is signed before ratification by anyone the president appoints to do so. I have made that clear in many posts. The only time the presidents signature is required on a treaty is AFTER it is ratified by a 2/3 aye vote by congress.
> 
> Besides, we are discussing whether or not Obama plans to have this "agreement" ratified as a treaty...
> 
> So your post is useless.
Click to expand...


Nope. Wrong.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The SCOTUS is part of the judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_
> 
> The Advocacy of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle are marveling at _irrefutable *fact*_.
Click to expand...

I remember when keys (there are theists, then there is wiggy theists like keys) was arguing that whatever he said, in one of the marriage equality threads, was authoritative.  _Adorable!_


----------



## Statistikhengst

The petition to charge the 47 with treason has jumped from 8,900 when I signed it to 21,900 in just under 2 hours time....


File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government

You can sign up too.


----------



## BluesLegend

AceRothstein said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have the ass backwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is a murderous thug terrorist state so negotiating with them would seem unwise. Look even other Democratic party leaders have said Obama's negotiating ideas with Iran are "naïve and dangerous".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who has said that besides the foreign policy loon John Bolton?
Click to expand...


OMG HELLO earth to liberals, is there anything in there past that 4" of dense bone in your Neanderthal skulls? Go back and review your own 2008 Democratic party primary debates geesh!


----------



## 1stRambo

*LEVIN: REMEMBER WHEN CONGRESSIONAL DEMS TALKED TO WORLD LEADERS?*
by IAN HANCHETT9 Mar 2015145
*
Talk radio host and author of “The Liberty Amendments,” Mark Levin pointed out multiple occasions when Congressional Democrats communicated with world leaders when Republicans were in the White House on Monday.

Reacting to the criticism Republicans faced for writing a letter to Iran’s leaders, Levin stated “Wow, they sent a letter to the Iranian leadership. Did they meet with the Iranian leadership the way that [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi (D-CA) met with the dictator, mass killer in Syria? Did they do that?”

Levin continued, “I have another one, did they give aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong when our men and women were over there fighting that war like John Kerry? Hey, here’s another one. Did they go around the back of Ronald Reagan and tell the Russians ‘don’t worry, Reagan’s going to lose, and when he loses things will change’ the way Ted Kennedy did? No.”

Yo, so when you hear a "Socialist Progressive Democrat" bitching and moaning about the letter, and saying it is unprecedented, you will know they are the true liars!!!

"GTP"

"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



 


*


----------



## JakeStarkey

BluesLegend said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have the ass backwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is a murderous thug terrorist state so negotiating with them would seem unwise. Look even other Democratic party leaders have said Obama's negotiating ideas with Iran are "naïve and dangerous".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who has said that besides the foreign policy loon John Bolton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG HELLO earth to liberals, is there anything in there past that 4" of dense bone in your Neanderthal skulls? Go back and review your own 2008 Democratic party primary debates geesh!
Click to expand...

link?


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Leftists have short memories


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Reagan, who sold arms to Iran when it was forbidden?  Yeah, don't go there.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## 1stRambo

PaintMyHouse said:


> Reagan, who sold arms to Iran when it was forbidden?  Yeah, don't go there.



Yo, is that all you got?

"GTP"


----------



## 1stRambo

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



Yo, Democrat Uderground.Com, wow, you sure showed me, what a total loser!

"GTP"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*47 percent of Senators all of them Conservative dumb fucks screwed the pooch...way to go aces...LOL*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

1stRambo said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, Democrat Uderground.Com, wow, you sure showed me, what a total loser!
> 
> "GTP"
Click to expand...

Hey doo doo brains ...look at the citations on the graphic with quotes from various Media sources.....just trying to help you...


----------



## SuperDemocrat

1stRambo said:


> *LEVIN: REMEMBER WHEN CONGRESSIONAL DEMS TALKED TO WORLD LEADERS?*
> by IAN HANCHETT9 Mar 2015145
> 
> *Talk radio host and author of “The Liberty Amendments,” Mark Levin pointed out multiple occasions when Congressional Democrats communicated with world leaders when Republicans were in the White House on Monday.*
> 
> *Reacting to the criticism Republicans faced for writing a letter to Iran’s leaders, Levin stated “Wow, they sent a letter to the Iranian leadership. Did they meet with the Iranian leadership the way that [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi (D-CA) met with the dictator, mass killer in Syria? Did they do that?”*
> 
> *Levin continued, “I have another one, did they give aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong when our men and women were over there fighting that war like John Kerry? Hey, here’s another one. Did they go around the back of Ronald Reagan and tell the Russians ‘don’t worry, Reagan’s going to lose, and when he loses things will change’ the way Ted Kennedy did? No.”*
> 
> *Yo, so when you hear a "Socialist Progressive Democrat" bitching and moaning about the letter, and saying it is unprecedented, you will know they are the true liars!!!*
> 
> *"GTP"*
> 
> *"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"*
> 
> *Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> *View attachment 37652 *



We democrats can do whatever we want


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

1stRambo said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan, who sold arms to Iran when it was forbidden?  Yeah, don't go there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, is that all you got?
> 
> "GTP"
Click to expand...

yoooo hooo wing nut....
*US sent Iran arms for hostage releases - The International ...*


----------



## 1stRambo

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *47 percent of Senators all of them Conservative dumb fucks screwed the pooch...way to go aces...LOL*



Yo, 

"GTP"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

1stRambo said:


> Yo,
> 
> "GTP"



Not much discussion on Hillary...its mostly this ...sweet
*SABOTEUR SENATORS TAKE FRIENDLY FIRE *



Hawkish Republican Uneasy Over Iran Letter...  Daily News Blasts 'Traitors'...  WSJ: They Went Too Far...  'Breathtaking Attempt To Sabotage U.S. Foreign Policy'...  Menendez Unhappy...  GOP Moves Imperil Democratic Cooperation...  _Tom Cotton Doesn't Give A Damn About Iran Talks Protocol, But A Lot Of Others Do... _


----------



## BluesLegend

JakeStarkey said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have the ass backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is a murderous thug terrorist state so negotiating with them would seem unwise. Look even other Democratic party leaders have said Obama's negotiating ideas with Iran are "naïve and dangerous".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who has said that besides the foreign policy loon John Bolton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG HELLO earth to liberals, is there anything in there past that 4" of dense bone in your Neanderthal skulls? Go back and review your own 2008 Democratic party primary debates geesh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> link?
Click to expand...


^^^ Ahahaha a classic liberal response, now I have to link you people to what your own leaders said? The earth rotates around the sun, do you require a link?


----------



## 1stRambo

TyroneSlothrop said:


> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan, who sold arms to Iran when it was forbidden?  Yeah, don't go there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, is that all you got?
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yoooo hooo wing nut....
> *US sent Iran arms for hostage releases - The International ...*
Click to expand...

Yo, at least someone was prosecuted? Unlike the Benghazi fiasco, but its not over!

President Reagan appointed a review board, headed by former Republican Senator John Tower. The Tower Commission's report concluded that the president had been inefficient in controlling the National Security Council, the agency that had actually made the illegal deals, and had known about the arms sale to the Iranians. However, it could not be discovered in hearings if the president had known about the Contra support.

It was finally found that National Security Advisor Poindexter had personally authorized the diversion of money to the Contra rebels; all the while withholding the information from President Reagan. The CIA's William J. Casey played a part in the conspiracy, but he died during the hearings.

Iran-Contra Affair

Yo, live with it!!!

"GTP"


----------



## 1stRambo

SuperDemocrat said:


> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> *LEVIN: REMEMBER WHEN CONGRESSIONAL DEMS TALKED TO WORLD LEADERS?*
> by IAN HANCHETT9 Mar 2015145
> 
> *Talk radio host and author of “The Liberty Amendments,” Mark Levin pointed out multiple occasions when Congressional Democrats communicated with world leaders when Republicans were in the White House on Monday.*
> 
> *Reacting to the criticism Republicans faced for writing a letter to Iran’s leaders, Levin stated “Wow, they sent a letter to the Iranian leadership. Did they meet with the Iranian leadership the way that [Rep. Nancy] Pelosi (D-CA) met with the dictator, mass killer in Syria? Did they do that?”*
> 
> *Levin continued, “I have another one, did they give aid and comfort to the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong when our men and women were over there fighting that war like John Kerry? Hey, here’s another one. Did they go around the back of Ronald Reagan and tell the Russians ‘don’t worry, Reagan’s going to lose, and when he loses things will change’ the way Ted Kennedy did? No.”*
> 
> *Yo, so when you hear a "Socialist Progressive Democrat" bitching and moaning about the letter, and saying it is unprecedented, you will know they are the true liars!!!*
> 
> *"GTP"*
> 
> *"OBAMA HATES AMERICA"*
> 
> *Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum*
> *View attachment 37652 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We democrats can do whatever we want
Click to expand...


Yo, it seems that way, even break laws and get away with it! But that is coming to an end in 2016!!!

"GTP"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Goopers lets face it when the Wall Street Journal criticizes the traitor Senators that is big when you lose WSJ


----------



## 1stRambo

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



Yo, it fits right in with the LAW BREAKER!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Real Americans do not stab America in the back like the GOP just did


----------



## 2aguy

No....allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon is stabbing America in the back......at least there are some republicans who know how to fight back......


----------



## Luddly Neddite

One can make a reasonable case that sending the letter to Iran was a criminal act.

Here is the text of the Logan Act, passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law by imprisonment of up to three years. (Reference)
_Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both._
The Republican Senators' letter has the following three elements, right out of the definition of the crime:

1. Correspondence with a foreign government (whether direct or indirect, in the form of an “open letter”, doesn't matter to the law).
2. Without the authority of the United States (it enjoys no imprimatur from the executive branch nor, for that matter, from Congress as an institution).
3. With the pretty clear intent “to influence the measures or conduct of” the government of Iran in relation to a 'dispute or controversy with the United States.' Why send it, otherwise?

Why should it not be considered a crime? Of course, the last prosecution under that act was in 1803, and it might not be a good political move, but still . . .

==================================

A friend sent the above to me.

Yes, they're traitors but they'll never be prosecuted.


----------



## 1stRambo

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Real Americans do not stab America in the back like the GOP just did



Yo, how true? And they don`t ban things?


 


 


 


 
"GTP"


----------



## asterism

Will all the staunch defenders of Presidential authority please post links to their criticisms of Pelosi in 2007?



> *Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Malla/Associated Press
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, meeting today at the Presidential Palace in Damascus with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
> 
> By HASSAN M. FATTAH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
> Published: April 4, 2007
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*


----------



## RetiredGySgt

So we should have charged the Democrats in Reagan's time with a felony for communicating with Nicaragua? By the way dumb ass Congress IS the Government.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

How about Kerry as a private citizen communication with the North Vietnamese delegation in Paris, or was that different?


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*




Yes.....the New Speak media labels the guy who left his law practice, joined the army, went to ranger school and became an officer and actually fought muslim terrorists....who now helped tell the Iranians not to expect to get help from obama in getting their nuclear weapon so they can give it out to terrorists and use it to destroy Israel...he's the bad guy.....

It is good to be a democrat.....


----------



## pismoe

FUNNY luddley , thankyou !!


----------



## PaintMyHouse

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*


Tehrantom.com is available...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

_Jared Polis jaredpolis Twitter 

Jared Polis ‏@jaredpolis 14h14 hours ago 
Tehran Tom asks Iranian Revolutionary Guards for help in battle against US diplomats 

Details 
Jared Polis ‏@jaredpolis 14h14 hours ago 
Tehran Tom took his case directly to the Iranian government 

Details 
Jared Polis ‏@jaredpolis 15h15 hours ago 
47 Republican Senators have aligned themselves with Iran's hard-liners... who would have thought?_


----------



## 2aguy

Here is a great piece...it shows 5 times the democrats actively supported our enemies during a Republican administration....not just letters, active support of the enemies.....

5 times Democrats undermined Republican presidents with foreign governments WashingtonExaminer.com

*4. Democrats visited Iraq to attack Bush's policy*
 
As Stephen Hayes recounts: "In September 2002, David Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, flew to Baghdad in an attempt to undermine George W. Bush's case for war in Iraq on a trip paid for by Saddam Hussein's regime. Bonior, accompanied by Reps. Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson, actively propagandized for the Iraqi regime. McDermott, asked whether he found it acceptable to be used by the Iraqi regime, said he hoped the trip would end the suffering of children. 'We don't mind being used,' he said."


*5. Jimmy Carter tried to sabotage George H.W. Bush at the U.N.*
 
On Nov. 20, 1990, as President George H.W. Bush gathered support to oppose Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, the former Democratic President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to nations who were in the U.N. Security Council trying to kill the administration's efforts. As Douglas Brinkley explained, Carter's letter was an attempt "to thwart the Bush administration's request for U.N. authorization of hostilities against Iraq. President Bush's criterion for proceeding with a war was the exhaustion of 'good faith talks,' and Carter placed his interpr


----------



## 2aguy

TyroneSlothrop said:


> _Jared Polis jaredpolis Twitter
> 
> Jared Polis ‏@jaredpolis 14h14 hours ago
> Tehran Tom asks Iranian Revolutionary Guards for help in battle against US diplomats
> 
> Details
> Jared Polis ‏@jaredpolis 14h14 hours ago
> Tehran Tom took his case directly to the Iranian government
> 
> Details
> Jared Polis ‏@jaredpolis 15h15 hours ago
> 47 Republican Senators have aligned themselves with Iran's hard-liners... who would have thought?_




How stupid is that......they tell Iran they can't have nuclear weapons....and the New Speak , democrat minions say the exact opposite.......you guys are F****d in the head.......


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

* Republicans Are Worried That Treasonous Tom Cotton’s Iran Letter Is Backfiring *

Republicans are starting to realize that trying to sabotage the President Of The United States might not have been such a good idea. Republicans are openly worrying that…


----------



## 2aguy

You libs are really vile......Iran wants nuclear weapons, and your racist leader is going to let them get them....and Republicans say no.....we are going to try to stop it.....

and you morons side with Iran........you truly do not have moral compasses.......


----------



## 2aguy

There truly is not one murderous regime you guys won't fall in love with......


----------



## PaintMyHouse

2aguy said:


> You libs are really vile......Iran wants nuclear weapons, and your racist leader is going to let them get them....and Republicans say no.....we are going to try to stop it.....
> 
> and you morons side with Iran........you truly do not have moral compasses.......


What makes you think you have the right to tell other nations what they can and can't do?  If Iran says we can't build a new bomber, should we give a fuck?  No, so why should they care what we have to say about their weapons?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Cotton's letter to Iran was signed by the vast majority of Senate Republicans, including leadership, there aren't a lot of voices defending it.* Other than the usual suspect here LOL


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## 1stRambo

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*



Yo, this is all you need to know about this American Hero!
Newly elected Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the youngest members of the Senate, only 37 years old, a graduate of ""Harvard and Harvard Law"" and a veteran of both ""Afghanistan and Iraq.""

"GTP"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

1stRambo said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, this is all you need to know about this American Hero!
> Newly elected Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the youngest members of the Senate, only 37 years old, a graduate of ""Harvard and Harvard Law"" and a veteran of both ""Afghanistan and Iraq.""
> 
> "GTP"
Click to expand...


----------



## 1stRambo

TyroneSlothrop said:


> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, this is all you need to know about this American Hero!
> Newly elected Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the youngest members of the Senate, only 37 years old, a graduate of ""Harvard and Harvard Law"" and a veteran of both ""Afghanistan and Iraq.""
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Yo, true!


 
"GTP"


----------



## PaintMyHouse

1stRambo said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, this is all you need to know about this American Hero!
> Newly elected Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the youngest members of the Senate, only 37 years old, a graduate of ""Harvard and Harvard Law"" and a veteran of both ""Afghanistan and Iraq.""
Click to expand...

Well he ain't shit now...


----------



## Derideo_Te

The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.


----------



## 1stRambo

PaintMyHouse said:


> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, this is all you need to know about this American Hero!
> Newly elected Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the youngest members of the Senate, only 37 years old, a graduate of ""Harvard and Harvard Law"" and a veteran of both ""Afghanistan and Iraq.""
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he ain't shit now...
Click to expand...


Yo, cry a river? You Socialist are good at it!!!

"GTP"


----------



## asterism

It was stupid for the GOP Senators to do this.  But it's hardly without precedent:

5 times Democrats undermined Republican presidents with foreign governments WashingtonExaminer.com


----------



## PaintMyHouse

1stRambo said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *GOP Senator Tom Cotton is now being mocked a "Tehran Tom" Cotton Ayatollah agent ...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, this is all you need to know about this American Hero!
> Newly elected Tom Cotton of Arkansas is one of the youngest members of the Senate, only 37 years old, a graduate of ""Harvard and Harvard Law"" and a veteran of both ""Afghanistan and Iraq.""
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well he ain't shit now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo, cry a river? You Socialist are good at it!!!
Click to expand...

Cry?  I'm toasting his roasting, the stupid bastard.  Tehran Tom, for life.


----------



## 1stRambo

Luddly Neddite said:


> One can make a reasonable case that sending the letter to Iran was a criminal act.
> 
> Here is the text of the Logan Act, passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law by imprisonment of up to three years. (Reference)
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both._
> The Republican Senators' letter has the following three elements, right out of the definition of the crime:
> 
> 1. Correspondence with a foreign government (whether direct or indirect, in the form of an “open letter”, doesn't matter to the law).
> 2. Without the authority of the United States (it enjoys no imprimatur from the executive branch nor, for that matter, from Congress as an institution).
> 3. With the pretty clear intent “to influence the measures or conduct of” the government of Iran in relation to a 'dispute or controversy with the United States.' Why send it, otherwise?
> 
> Why should it not be considered a crime? Of course, the last prosecution under that act was in 1803, and it might not be a good political move, but still . . .
> 
> ==================================
> 
> A friend sent the above to me.
> 
> Yes, they're traitors but they'll never be prosecuted.



Yo, Obama and Kerry better get the HELL out of Iran than?

"GTP"


----------



## Uncensored2008

Yawn..

Hair on fire leftists - so pathetic.


----------



## NLT

Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In 1984 Elections

7 Times Democrats Advised America s Enemies to Oppose the President - Breitbart

Ted Kennedy s Soviet Gambit - Forbes

Shut the fuck up duddy dumbass


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*[Arrest Impeach Recall] Lets AIR *out the Senate ...clean out the Traitors


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> Yawn..
> 
> Hair on fire leftists - so pathetic.


that's a switch from the ass on fire 24/7 consevobots


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Wry Catcher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.
> 
> And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.
> 
> "_by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
> 
> Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government._”
> 
> _“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”
> 
> "Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."_
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and  aiding their means to injure the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago.  47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
> 
> As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He tried to right nothing other than his own self gratification.  He is no hero and a despicable yet disgusting human being for his actions against the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was on active duty during the Vietnam War (1967-1969) and can assure you the opinions expressed by Kerry then were quite common among the military even that early.
Click to expand...


I believe you and the sentiment expressed after we were fully embroiled. However, I do not believe Kerry.  I've read too much on his false accusations and righteous indignation....basically castigating the military as a whole.  I was against this conflict but never against the men who fought in this war. I applaud your service.  Now....I can get back to badgering you.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Derideo_Te said:


> The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.




I agree.

They actually counseled an enemy of the US, they advised them as to how they could ignore our government and go ahead with their weapons plans. They literally told Iran that the Republicans would guarantee the US would take no action.

Is there precedence for congress going behind the back of our government to aid and abet our enemy in getting a weapon to use against us?


----------



## 1stRambo

Luddly Neddite said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> They actually counseled an enemy of the US, they advised them as to how they could ignore our government and go ahead with their weapons plans. They literally told Iran that the Republicans would guarantee the US would take no action.
> 
> Is there precedence for congress going behind the back of our government to aid and abet our enemy in getting a weapon to use against us?
Click to expand...


Yo, look it up in history? There were plenty of Democrat traitors!!! Or just read it here in the responses?

"GTP"


----------



## hadit

Must . Keep . Hope . Alive.

Must . Protect . The . Fragile . One.

Even if it means parroting talking points.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Luddly Neddite said:


> One can make a reasonable case that sending the letter to Iran was a criminal act.
> 
> Here is the text of the Logan Act, passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law by imprisonment of up to three years. (Reference)
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both._
> The Republican Senators' letter has the following three elements, right out of the definition of the crime:
> 
> 1. Correspondence with a foreign government (whether direct or indirect, in the form of an “open letter”, doesn't matter to the law).
> 2. Without the authority of the United States (it enjoys no imprimatur from the executive branch nor, for that matter, from Congress as an institution).
> 3. With the pretty clear intent “to influence the measures or conduct of” the government of Iran in relation to a 'dispute or controversy with the United States.' Why send it, otherwise?
> 
> Why should it not be considered a crime? Of course, the last prosecution under that act was in 1803, and it might not be a good political move, but still . . .
> 
> ==================================
> 
> A friend sent the above to me.
> 
> Yes, they're traitors but they'll never be prosecuted.


Lock the treasonous dogs up and throw away the key


----------



## Missouri_Mike

So the senate who the president is on a daily basis threatening to bypass inserted their authority on a president who threatened to bypass them on this Iran deal and now the leftards are going apeshit crazy.

Some days it's just fun to watch the meltdown.


----------



## 2aguy

PaintMyHouse said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> You libs are really vile......Iran wants nuclear weapons, and your racist leader is going to let them get them....and Republicans say no.....we are going to try to stop it.....
> 
> and you morons side with Iran........you truly do not have moral compasses.......
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think you have the right to tell other nations what they can and can't do?  If Iran says we can't build a new bomber, should we give a fuck?  No, so why should they care what we have to say about their weapons?
Click to expand...



Because they export murder........what part of that don't you libtards get.....they won't use the weapon just for self defense, they will use it on Israel and if they can, on the United States.....you are the guys who sat there and said...so what if hitler rearms Germany.....he seems like a nice guy......

Do you guys pay attention to history at all?


----------



## Lakhota

*“Sarah Palin with a Harvard degree”: Why new senator Tom Cotton is so frightening*

Interesting article.  Cotton sounds like a loose canon.


----------



## Wry Catcher

BluesLegend said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you have the ass backwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are clearly trying to sabotage any agreement with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is a murderous thug terrorist state so negotiating with them would seem unwise. Look even other Democratic party leaders have said Obama's negotiating ideas with Iran are "naïve and dangerous".
Click to expand...


So, what is the best policy?  Do you want war?  We went to war in Iraq, how did that turn out?


----------



## paperview

asterism said:


> Will all the staunch defenders of Presidential authority please post links to their criticisms of Pelosi in 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Malla/Associated Press
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, meeting today at the Presidential Palace in Damascus with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
> 
> By HASSAN M. FATTAH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
> Published: April 4, 2007
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


You mean the same leadership republicans like Frank Wolf and Darrell Issa who  visited with the Syrian President  around the same time as Pelosi?


----------



## guno

Plus the senate an congress do not make foreign policy so their letter is meaningless 

Iranian Foreign Minister Schools US Senators in American Int l Law Sputnik International


----------



## Mad Scientist

Congress IS the Authority of the United States.

It was a letter from Congress, NOT 47 individuals.

Opie needs to stop watching tv.


----------



## guno

Luddly Neddite said:


> One can make a reasonable case that sending the letter to Iran was a criminal act.
> 
> Here is the text of the Logan Act, passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law by imprisonment of up to three years. (Reference)
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both._
> The Republican Senators' letter has the following three elements, right out of the definition of the crime:
> 
> 1. Correspondence with a foreign government (whether direct or indirect, in the form of an “open letter”, doesn't matter to the law).
> 2. Without the authority of the United States (it enjoys no imprimatur from the executive branch nor, for that matter, from Congress as an institution).
> 3. With the pretty clear intent “to influence the measures or conduct of” the government of Iran in relation to a 'dispute or controversy with the United States.' Why send it, otherwise?
> 
> Why should it not be considered a crime? Of course, the last prosecution under that act was in 1803, and it might not be a good political move, but still . . .
> 
> ==================================
> 
> A friend sent the above to me.
> 
> Yes, they're traitors but they'll never be prosecuted.



Zarif slammed the US senators by saying, “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law.

The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations,” reported Iranian media.

The Iranian Foreign Minister, who also holds Masters and PhD in international relations from the University of Denver, plus two degrees from San Francisco State University, is also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator.

Hence, regarding an unusual approach of the US Senators, Zarif added “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

Zarif ultimately dismissed the letter as having "no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,"


Iranian Foreign Minister Schools US Senators in American Int l Law Sputnik International


----------



## pismoe

thanks Mad Scientist !!


----------



## Wry Catcher

Kondor3 said:


> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for better or worse, the Pubs have served notice that they plan to overturn much of Obumble's work, if they win in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I think that was their objective in 2012 as well. Especially that pesky Omamcare. How'd that work out for them hateful Rethugs? Is that done yet? Or are they waiting till they overturn the illegal immigrant situation? How's that working out for them?
> 
> But really, the IF they win part is the truth. Big IF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed - although reversals were not attempted to either the ObamaCare and Immigration situations, with Pubs in control of both Congress and the Oval Office - which is, of course, their hope for 2016...
> 
> If the Pubs gain control of both Congress AND the White House in 2016, some of His Majesty's social re-engineering will be overthrown so frigging fast that it'll make our heads spin...
Click to expand...


After the heads spin, then what?


----------



## Derideo_Te

Mad Scientist said:


> Congress IS the Authority of the United States.
> 
> It was a letter from Congress, NOT 47 individuals.
> 
> Opie needs to stop watching tv.



BZZZT Wrong!

47 individual Senators do not represent Congress. They don't even represent a majority in the Senate. 

The Constitution does not empower Congress to negotiate with foreign nations. That is a power delegated to the Executive Branch. Congress merely has the power to ratify treaties.


----------



## Katzndogz

Iran should rely on that so President Walker can make them eat it.


----------



## AmericanFirst

guno said:


> Plus the senate an congress do not make foreign policy so their letter is meaningless
> 
> Iranian Foreign Minister Schools US Senators in American Int l Law Sputnik International


Says the idiot commie.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheOldSchool said:


> Lock the treasonous dogs up and throw away the key



You just do that, gather up your ISIS allies and move right in...


----------



## Uncensored2008

guno said:


> Zarif slammed the US senators by saying, “I should bring one important point to the attention of the authors and that is, the world is not the United States, and the conduct of inter-state relations is governed by international law, and not by US domestic law.
> 
> The authors may not fully understand that in international law, governments represent the entirety of their respective states, are responsible for the conduct of foreign affairs, are required to fulfill the obligations they undertake with other states and may not invoke their internal law as justification for failure to perform their international obligations,” reported Iranian media.
> 
> The Iranian Foreign Minister, who also holds Masters and PhD in international relations from the University of Denver, plus two degrees from San Francisco State University, is also Iran's chief nuclear negotiator.
> 
> Hence, regarding an unusual approach of the US Senators, Zarif added “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”
> 
> Zarif ultimately dismissed the letter as having "no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,"
> 
> 
> Iranian Foreign Minister Schools US Senators in American Int l Law Sputnik International



We know you democrats work for the Iranians, that Obama promotes Iranian goals, but thankfully the Republicans in the Senate still have loyalty to America. Allah knows you and your fellow Islamists don't.


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> So we should have charged the Democrats in Reagan's time with a felony for communicating with Nicaragua? By the way dumb ass Congress IS the Government.


amended in 1994?


----------



## Howey

Lock them up. Put them before the firing squad. While America's teabaggers are making a mountain out of a molehill over Hillary's emails, I present you the real scandal.



> *“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”*



More..



> The Logan Act was named for Dr. George Logan, a  Pennsylvania state legislator (and later US Senator) who engaged in semi-negotiations with France in 1798 during the Quasi-War.
> 
> In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:
> 
> [T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.
> 
> Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:
> 
> The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.


----------



## Dante

RetiredGySgt said:


> So we should have charged the Democrats in Reagan's time with a felony for communicating with Nicaragua? By the way dumb ass Congress IS the Government.


Uhm, they got approval from the US Government to go there


dumbass


----------



## pismoe

just like the invite from Boener to BIBI these 47 are held in high esteem by many Americans because of what they did .    Thankyou Tom Cotton for coming up with the idea and thanks to the 47 that signed it .


----------



## Dante

Republicans interfered with President Carter's FP in ways that blew the mind at the time.

today?


----------



## Stephanie

holy smokes. what leftwing site did he get that off of...

you all have went insane since you LOST to Republicans...

tsk tsk tsk...THEY WON get the hell over it


----------



## Uncensored2008

Derideo_Te said:


> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> 47 individual Senators do not represent Congress. They don't even represent a majority in the Senate.
> 
> The Constitution does not empower Congress to negotiate with foreign nations. That is a power delegated to the Executive Branch. Congress merely has the power to ratify treaties.



What do you plan to do, assclown? Hold your breath? Draw a red line?  Watch fuckwad Obama golf?


----------



## HenryBHough

Great idea.

Right after we hang, draw and quarter those who swore to uphold The Constitution of The United States and in doing so lied....as they have done so many times since.

Yup, those 47 can be in line right after that first little job is done.

But not until.


----------



## Katzndogz

There are people in the United States that do not know that treaties and agreements made by the president have to be ratified by Congress. 

Isn't that rather shameful?


----------



## Little-Acorn

I actively support and agree with your outrage over U.S. Senators who interfere with important negotiations by the President, and who actively support the leaders of those countries who have nuclear weapons and are aiming them right at us.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) letter to USSR Premier Yuri Andropov in 1983, offering to help him evade then-President Reagan's attempts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in both countries, ranks among the top treasonous missives in U.S. history.

Kennedy offered to come to Moscow to help the Russians develop propaganda to defeat Reagan's disarmament attempts. He also tried to arrange for Andropov to interview with U.S. media outlets for the same purpose.

As you said, to advise a US enemy, to encourage them to develop a weapon to use against us, these scum have really hit bottom.

Did they commit a felony? Quite possibly. To openly sell out their own country, as you described it, is the worst of the worst.

This happened with a U.S. enemy that had already developed nuclear weapons AND the systems to deliver them onto U.S. cities. They had them aimed right at us, ready to fire. Not just to some backwater wannabe 7th-century dictatorship which the Democrats were insisting would never develop nuclear weapons at all, just nuclear power for "peaceful purposes". So I'm sure you'd agree that what Kennedy did was far more serious than what present-day Republicans have done. Right?

Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union

----------------------------------

Oops, wrong thread. Can you tell me where's the thread Democrats wrote, expressing their outrage over Kennedy's strange treason? I'll transfer this post there, and erase it here, as soon as I find it.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lock the treasonous dogs up and throw away the key
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just do that, gather up your ISIS allies and move right in...
Click to expand...

So you support traitors now huh.  Party before America.  Typical teaper.


----------



## Dante

Luddly Neddite said:


> One can make a reasonable case that sending the letter to Iran was a criminal act.
> 
> Here is the text of the Logan Act, passed in 1799 and last amended in 1994. Violation of the Logan Act is a felony, punishable under federal law by imprisonment of up to three years. (Reference)
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both._
> The Republican Senators' letter has the following three elements, right out of the definition of the crime:
> 
> 1. Correspondence with a foreign government (whether direct or indirect, in the form of an “open letter”, doesn't matter to the law).
> 2. Without the authority of the United States (it enjoys no imprimatur from the executive branch nor, for that matter, from Congress as an institution).
> 3. With the pretty clear intent “to influence the measures or conduct of” the government of Iran in relation to a 'dispute or controversy with the United States.' Why send it, otherwise?
> 
> Why should it not be considered a crime? Of course, the last prosecution under that act was in 1803, and it might not be a good political move, but still . . .
> 
> ==================================
> 
> A friend sent the above to me.
> 
> Yes, they're traitors but they'll never be prosecuted.


How does this square with the Constitution requiring the Executive get the consent of the Legislative Branch in order for the President to Ratify a treaty?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> Republicans interfered with President Carter's FP in ways that blew the mind at the time.
> 
> today?




You mean sort of like creating a solidarity agreement with the USSR the way democrats did under Reagan?

I know, that's different - the Soviets were our enemy, democrats LOVE our enemies, they just hate America and her allies...

Seriously dainty, of all the stupidity the leftists have come up with, this is a level of desperation that is simply laughable. The boiking got humiliated? Good!


----------



## Little-Acorn

I fully support and agree with your outrage over U.S. Senators who send communications to leaders of enemy countries who have nuclear weapons, the delivery systems to place them on U.S. cities, and who are actively threatening us with them. Especially when those lette help them to develop and deploy those weapons.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) letter to USSR Premier Yuri Andropov in 1983, offering to help him evade then-President Reagan's attempts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in both countries, ranks among the top treasonous missives in U.S. history.

Kennedy offered to come to Moscow to help the Russians develop propaganda to defeat Reagan's disarmament attempts. He also tried to arrange for Andropov to interview with U.S. media outlets for the same purpose.

As you said, to advise a US enemy, to encourage them to develop a weapon to use against us, these scum have really hit bottom.

Did they commit a felony? Quite possibly. To openly sell out their own country, as you described it, is the worst of the worst.

This happened with a U.S. enemy that had already developed nuclear weapons AND the systems to deliver them onto U.S. cities. They had them aimed right at us, ready to fire. Not just to some backwater wannabe 7th-century dictatorship which the Democrats were insisting would never develop nuclear weapons at all, just nuclear power for "peaceful purposes". So I'm sure you'd agree that what Kennedy did was far more serious than what present-day Republicans have done. Right?

Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union

----------------------------------

Oops, wrong thread. Can you tell me where's the thread Democrats wrote, expressing their outrage over Kennedy's strange treason? I'll transfer this post there, and erase it here, as soon as I find it.


----------



## Ernie S.

Howey said:


> Lock them up. Put them before the firing squad. While America's teabaggers are making a mountain out of a molehill over Hillary's emails, I present you the real scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Logan Act was named for Dr. George Logan, a  Pennsylvania state legislator (and later US Senator) who engaged in semi-negotiations with France in 1798 during the Quasi-War.
> 
> In United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936), Justice Sutherland wrote in the majority opinion:
> 
> [T]he President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.
> 
> Sutherland also notes in his opinion the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations report to the Senate of February 15, 1816:
> 
> The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct, he is responsible to the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

"The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations, and _*must necessarily be most competent*_ to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success."

He's not even marginally competent.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Derideo_Te said:


> The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.


Be specific explain how the letter violates the requirements established by the Constitution for treason. Shall I quote that requirement or in your ignorance can you find it on your own?


----------



## Stephanie

it seems like Democrat don't understand or give a shit. so would you school this woman on it please

NOW speaking of a traitor..

*FLASHBACK: Pelosi Dismisses Criticism From Bush After She Meets With Assad In Syria… *





Keep in mind Pelosi was meeting with Assad while he was allowing al-Qaeda in Iraq to use Syria as a staging area to kill Americans fighting in Iraq.

DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.

Pelosi said Assad assured her of his willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel, and that she and other members of her congressional delegation raised their concern about militants crossing from Syria into Iraq, as well the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas.

all of it here:
FLASHBACK Pelosi Dismisses Criticism From Bush After She Meets With Assad In Syria Weasel Zippers


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The republicans responsible for that letter were reckless and wrong, the letter was unwarranted interference, inane, and amateurish.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheOldSchool said:


> [
> So you support traitors now huh.



No, I don't support you.



> Party before America.  Typical teaper.



You fucktards are blowing smoke and angry that everyone laughs at you.

*Section. 3. *
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.  

Israel is not the enemy of the United States - Iran is. You democrats support Iran and attack the ally of the USA - so WHO are the traitors? Fuckwad Obama gives aid and comfort to Iran - WHO is the traitor? Not the Senate who opposed our enemy and backed our ally. Let's look at the little fuck who attacked our ally and supports our enemy, let's look at that scumbag Obama.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RetiredGySgt said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific explain how the letter violates the requirements established by the Constitution for treason. Shall I quote that requirement or in your ignorance can you find it on your own?
Click to expand...


You have to remember, these are technically retarded people. They cannot form thoughts, they only spew idiocy from the Soros hate sites.


----------



## Katzndogz

One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.


----------



## Howey

Little-Acorn said:


> I actively support and agree with your outrage over U.S. Senators who interfere with important negotiations by the President, and who actively support the leaders of those countries who have nuclear weapons and are aiming them right at us.
> 
> Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-MA) letter to USSR Premier Yuri Andropov in 1983, offering to help him evade then-President Reagan's attempts to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in both countries, ranks among the top treasonous missives in U.S. history.
> 
> Kennedy offered to come to Moscow to help the Russians develop propaganda to defeat Reagan's disarmament attempts. He also tried to arrange for Andropov to interview with U.S. media outlets for the same purpose.
> 
> As you said, to advise a US enemy, to encourage them to develop a weapon to use against us, these scum have really hit bottom.
> 
> Did they commit a felony? Quite possibly. To openly sell out their own country, as you described it, is the worst of the worst.
> 
> This happened with a U.S. enemy that had already developed nuclear weapons AND the systems to deliver them onto U.S. cities. They had them aimed right at us, ready to fire. Not just to some backwater wannabe 7th-century dictatorship which the Democrats were insisting would never develop nuclear weapons at all, just nuclear power for "peaceful purposes". So I'm sure you'd agree that what Kennedy did was far more serious than what present-day Republicans have done. Right?
> 
> Flashback Big Three Ignored Ted Kennedy s Letter to Soviet Union
> 
> ----------------------------------
> 
> Oops, wrong thread. Can you tell me where's the thread Democrats wrote, expressing their outrage over Kennedy's strange treason? I'll transfer this post there, and erase it here, as soon as I find it.




Fine with me. Dig up Ted's skeleton and put him in front of a firing squad with these 47 traitors.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Uncensored2008 said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> So you support traitors now huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't support you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Party before America.  Typical teaper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fucktards are blowing smoke and angry that everyone laughs at you.
> 
> *Section. 3. *
> Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
> 
> Israel is not the enemy of the United States - Iran is. You democrats support Iran and attack the ally of the USA - so WHO are the traitors? Fuckwad Obama gives aid and comfort to Iran - WHO is the traitor? Not the Senate who opposed our enemy and backed our ally. Let's look at the little fuck who attacked our ally and supports our enemy, let's look at that scumbag Obama.
Click to expand...

Okay traitor.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Derideo_Te said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress IS the Authority of the United States.
> 
> It was a letter from Congress, NOT 47 individuals.
> 
> Opie needs to stop watching tv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> 47 individual Senators do not represent Congress. They don't even represent a majority in the Senate.
> 
> The Constitution does not empower Congress to negotiate with foreign nations. That is a power delegated to the Executive Branch. Congress merely has the power to ratify treaties.
Click to expand...



And - if its true that they are speaking for all of congress, why did some Rs appear on camera today, saying they were against it?

Among them, of all people, Jeff Flake! I just about fell off my chair!


----------



## Manonthestreet




----------



## Iceweasel

guno said:


> Plus the senate an congress do not make foreign policy so their letter is meaningless
> 
> Iranian Foreign Minister Schools US Senators in American Int l Law Sputnik International


You don't even know what Congress is. It's the Senate and the House of Representatives. Thanks for the history lesson!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Dante said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean sort of like creating a solidarity agreement with the USSR the way democrats did under Reagan?
> 
> I know, that's different - the Soviets were our enemy, democrats LOVE our enemies, they just hate America and her allies...
> 
> Seriously dainty, of all the stupidity the leftists have come up with, this is a level of desperation that is simply laughable. The boiking got humiliated? Good!
> 
> 
> 
> speaking of Reagan and the USSR and opposition to his dealings with them:
> 
> When General Secretary Gorbachev was coming to Washington to sign the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Congressional Republicans, led by Dick Cheney (R-WY), Chairman of the House Republican Conference rebelled. Cheney said:
> “Addressing a joint meeting of Congress is a high honor, one of the highest honors we can accord anyone. Given the fact of continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, Soviet repression in Eastern Europe, and Soviet actions in Africa and Central America, it is totally inappropriate to confer this honor upon Gorbachev. He is an adversary, not an ally.” Paul Weyrich, National Director, Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress (_see also_: Free Congress Foundation) said: “Reagan is a weakened president, weakened in spirit as well as in clout, and not in a position to make judgments about Gorbachev at this time.”
> 
> Conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. devoted an entire issue of the National Review to the INF Treaty, calling it “Reagan’s Suicide Pact.” Buckley sent Reagan the first copy, with a letter attached saying, “_For the first time, I and my colleagues need to take very serious issue with you_.”
> 
> Henry Kissinger said the the treaty undid “_40 years of NATO_.”
> 
> Conservative pundit George Will calls Reagan “wildly wrong” in his dealings with the Soviets. Conservatives gather to bemoan what they call “summit fever,” accusing Reagan of “appeasement” both of communists and of Congressional liberals, and protesting Reagan’s “cutting deals with the evil empire.”  They mount a letter-writing campaign, generating some 300,000 letters, and launch a newspaper ad campaign that compares Reagan to former British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Senators Jesse Helms (R-NC) and Steven Symms (R-ID) try to undercut the treaty by attempting to add amendments that would make the treaty untenable; Helms will lead a filibuster against the treaty as well.
> 
> Conservative columnist George Will ridiculed “the cult of arms control,” writing, “The Soviets want victories; we want treaties.” Conservative Caucus Chairman (also see:  American Conservative Union) Howard Phillips fumed that Reagan had become “the speech reader-in-chief for the pro-appeasement triumvirate of (White House Chief of Staff) Howard Baker, Schultz, and (Defense Secretary) Frank Carlucci.” Every Republican presidential candidate, save Vice President George Bush, opposed it. New York Times columnist William Safire seemed to sum it up best: “The Russians… now understand the way to handle Mr. Reagan: Never murder a man who is committing suicide.”
> 
> Republicans during the INF debate genuinely believed the treaty would weaken America’s security. Senator Bob Dole, the Republican leader in the Senate, who was undecided on the treaty, put it bluntly: “I don’t trust Gorbachev.”
> 
> sources: The Daily Beast | The New Rpublic | History Commons | U.S. VS. THEM: How a Half Century of Conservatism Has Undermined America’s Security
> – by J. Peter Scoblic
Click to expand...


Did you have any idea that Israel is our ally?

I know Obama hates Jews, but Israel is a long time and loyal ally of America.

Obama, not so much....


----------



## Dante

please...outta here


----------



## Uncensored2008

TheOldSchool said:


> Okay traitor.



You don't need to sign you posts, we all know you're a traitor.


----------



## 1stRambo

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


Yo, nothing but more Hypocrisy here, move on!

"GTP"


----------



## Dante

I was restricted to post a post in this thread. Flaw? Glitch?


----------



## Dante

oh well, why bother?  too many issues (either software or moderation) to waste time here


----------



## Vigilante

And who can forget this despicable act of Nancy Piglosi's!!!

Remembering Nancy Pelosi s Syria Junket - Commentary Magazine Commentary Magazine

Or that communist sellout...Ted Kennedy!!!

Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In 1984 Elections


----------



## TimothysAlaska

What the republicans did was retarded.  What they should of done was talk about how non transparent the admin is about foreign diplomacy.  He should have congress in the loop.  But doing what they did is bad

I see now the republican heads are saying look nancy pelosi went to Damascus InDefiance of bush admin and other times the congress did things of a similar nature to a republican head of state.  This is a retarded argument if it is bad it is bad.  It gives credence to obama pointing fingers at bush saying look bush did this and that so I can do this.  It's like children playing the tattle tale game. And these people are controlling our country.  And should not be a game for political points.  It is sad obama does it and the repubs do so it must mean it is good.  What the heck is going on.....so basically in point blame bush and repubs can blame congress for doing bad things.   


We need a third party that has some common sense and can lead and persuade people with logical arguments instead of political talking points that are all lies.   Sad times when I see 10 year olds more mature then republicans and democrats.


----------



## Uncensored2008

No need for tit for tat - the traitorous democrats are full of shit. This charge is laughable, it's just the hates sites stirring up the retards to make noise.No one with an IQ higher than Statist or DotCom pays any attention at all.

Point, laugh at them, then ignore it.


----------



## asterism

paperview said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will all the staunch defenders of Presidential authority please post links to their criticisms of Pelosi in 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Malla/Associated Press
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, meeting today at the Presidential Palace in Damascus with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
> 
> By HASSAN M. FATTAH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
> Published: April 4, 2007
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the same leadership republicans like Frank Wolf and Darrell Issa who  visited with the Syrian President  around the same time as Pelosi?
Click to expand...


Did they support or oppose the President?


----------



## asterism

Luddly Neddite said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> They actually counseled an enemy of the US, they advised them as to how they could ignore our government and go ahead with their weapons plans. They literally told Iran that the Republicans would guarantee the US would take no action.
> 
> Is there precedence for congress going behind the back of our government to aid and abet our enemy in getting a weapon to use against us?
Click to expand...


Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California traveled to Iraq in 2002 to support Saddam Hussein and oppose the President.  Later it was uncovered that the Iraqi government paid for the trip (which they deny *wink wink).

US Saddam paid for lawmakers Iraq trip - USATODAY.com


----------



## cnm

Jarhead said:


> We do not negotiate with terrorists. [...]


Please.

You negotiate with some and fund others.


----------



## Iceweasel

asterism said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> They actually counseled an enemy of the US, they advised them as to how they could ignore our government and go ahead with their weapons plans. They literally told Iran that the Republicans would guarantee the US would take no action.
> 
> Is there precedence for congress going behind the back of our government to aid and abet our enemy in getting a weapon to use against us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California traveled to Iraq in 2002 to support Saddam Hussein and oppose the President.  Later it was uncovered that the Iraqi government paid for the trip (which they deny *wink wink).
> 
> US Saddam paid for lawmakers Iraq trip - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

He's our senator (still!). Fat asshole. He was called Baghdad Jim McDermott back in the day. 

The libs are just stupid, they don't care about truth. They only want to defeat their enemies on the right and will make any deal with the devil to do it.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Statistikhengst said:


> The petition to charge the 47 with treason has jumped from 8,900 when I signed it to 21,900 in just under 2 hours time....
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.



The petition to charge the 47 with treason, which was at 21,900 just 5 hours ago, is now at 92,600.... it was at 9,800 when I signed it about 8 hours ago...


File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government

You can sign up too.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> chesswarsnow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry bout that,
> 
> 1. At least some have the balls to stand for America, Obama is busy giving in to those who want us destroyed.
> 2. This is a start, much more needing to be done.
> 3. I know we have to let the negro end his term, otherwise the blacks will burn it down.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> SirJamesofTexas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Were you charged for the full brain wash?  Ask for some money back, you only needed a light rinse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OH!  Now THAT is a lovely concession!
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've become a cliche, I recognize being nuts (that is, challenged by reality) effects your judgments, making you incapable of responding in any manner other than to echo your earlier posts.  If you believe that is clever, see the parenthetical comment above.
Click to expand...


OH!  Good work... deflecting from the otherwise irrefutable facts, was the best you could do. 

_Your re-concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> The petition to charge the 47 with treason has jumped from 8,900 when I signed it to 21,900 in just under 2 hours time....
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.



ROFLMNAO!

So you're suggesting that Treason is a function of popularity?

*ROFLMNAO!*


----------



## Neotrotsky

Considering that ...
*Poll: Americans Don’t Trust Obama on Iran*
Poll Americans Don t Trust Obama on Iran - The Daily Beast


One has to doubt little support for the Left's newest friends- The Iranians


----------



## JimH52

Lunatics!


----------



## Faun

Stephanie said:


> it seems like Democrat don't understand or give a shit. so would you school this woman on it please
> 
> NOW speaking of a traitor..
> 
> *FLASHBACK: Pelosi Dismisses Criticism From Bush After She Meets With Assad In Syria… *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind Pelosi was meeting with Assad while he was allowing al-Qaeda in Iraq to use Syria as a staging area to kill Americans fighting in Iraq.
> 
> DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country.
> 
> Pelosi said Assad assured her of his willingness to engage in peace talks with Israel, and that she and other members of her congressional delegation raised their concern about militants crossing from Syria into Iraq, as well the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and the Palestinian group Hamas.
> 
> all of it here:
> FLASHBACK Pelosi Dismisses Criticism From Bush After She Meets With Assad In Syria Weasel Zippers


You probably can't even comprehend the difference between meeting with a leader and sabotaging a deal between the U.S. president and another country.


----------



## daws101

looks like the right is circling the fear wagons!


----------



## Neotrotsky

Sure like Senator Edward Kennedy’s offer to help the Soviet Union defeat Reagan’s efforts to build up the nuclear deterrent in Europe ?


----------



## HenryBHough

Sounds like Ted-the-Swimmer is going to have to be exhumed so he can be tried for his acts of "treason".  Wow, I best the wild-eyed liberals will have their panties all knotted up after regime change when a new president's IRS bitch-slaps Democrat organizations and fat-cats!

This is gonna be fun!


----------



## Statistikhengst

1stRambo said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans do not stab America in the back like the GOP just did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, how true? And they don`t ban things?
> View attachment 37658
> View attachment 37659
> View attachment 37660
> View attachment 37661
> "GTP"
Click to expand...



I do love it when RWNJs bellyache about everything. It is so fun to watch.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Perhaps, one has to suspect that the MSM will have a sudden inspiration to ... do their jobs, again


----------



## Faun

Tipsycatlover said:


> One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.


I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....

The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.

Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Claims of supporting Iran equate to supporting America---- are hard to make
and keep a straight face


----------



## Neotrotsky

After Papa Obama pulled the missile shield from Europe, support for Libya, little support for Israel, 
the World understands perfectly well that Papa Obama can not be trusted


One only has to look at the lies he told Americans about health care
to know he is not trust worthy


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Luddly Neddite said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress IS the Authority of the United States.
> 
> It was a letter from Congress, NOT 47 individuals.
> 
> Opie needs to stop watching tv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> 47 individual Senators do not represent Congress. They don't even represent a majority in the Senate.
> 
> The Constitution does not empower Congress to negotiate with foreign nations. That is a power delegated to the Executive Branch. Congress merely has the power to ratify treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And - if its true that they are speaking for all of congress, why did some Rs appear on camera today, saying they were against it?
> 
> Among them, of all people, Jeff Flake! I just about fell off my chair!
Click to expand...



Not surprising, Flake's "spokeswoman" has issued a statement taking back what he said on camera. She said that what he meant to say was that he agrees with the letter but not the timing. 

Flake is a flake who can't think for himself. IOW, the ideal Republican.

I wonder what his handlers will tell him opinion is tomorrow.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

2aguy said:


> Here is a great piece...it shows 5 times the democrats actively supported our enemies during a Republican administration....not just letters, active support of the enemies.....
> 
> 5 times Democrats undermined Republican presidents with foreign governments WashingtonExaminer.com
> 
> *4. Democrats visited Iraq to attack Bush's policy*
> 
> As Stephen Hayes recounts: "In September 2002, David Bonior, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, flew to Baghdad in an attempt to undermine George W. Bush's case for war in Iraq on a trip paid for by Saddam Hussein's regime. Bonior, accompanied by Reps. Jim McDermott and Mike Thompson, actively propagandized for the Iraqi regime. McDermott, asked whether he found it acceptable to be used by the Iraqi regime, said he hoped the trip would end the suffering of children. 'We don't mind being used,' he said."
> 
> 
> *5. Jimmy Carter tried to sabotage George H.W. Bush at the U.N.*
> 
> On Nov. 20, 1990, as President George H.W. Bush gathered support to oppose Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait, the former Democratic President Jimmy Carter wrote a letter to nations who were in the U.N. Security Council trying to kill the administration's efforts. As Douglas Brinkley explained, Carter's letter was an attempt "to thwart the Bush administration's request for U.N. authorization of hostilities against Iraq. President Bush's criterion for proceeding with a war was the exhaustion of 'good faith talks,' and Carter placed his interpr



LOL!  Carter colluded with the Soviet Union to avoid being defeated by Reagan.  

Now note that the Left's communications with Foreign Nations are to undermine American Principle, while the 47 Americans penned that letter in DEFENSE of American Principle.

Which simply proves ONCE AGAIN, that: 
​_*THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*_​


----------



## Vigilante

Luddly Neddite said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congress IS the Authority of the United States.
> 
> It was a letter from Congress, NOT 47 individuals.
> 
> Opie needs to stop watching tv.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BZZZT Wrong!
> 
> 47 individual Senators do not represent Congress. They don't even represent a majority in the Senate.
> 
> The Constitution does not empower Congress to negotiate with foreign nations. That is a power delegated to the Executive Branch. Congress merely has the power to ratify treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And - if its true that they are speaking for all of congress, why did some Rs appear on camera today, saying they were against it?
> 
> Among them, of all people, Jeff Flake! I just about fell off my chair!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising, Flake's "spokeswoman" has issued a statement taking back what he said on camera. She said that what he meant to say was that he agrees with the letter but not the timing.
> 
> Flake is a flake who can't think for himself. IOW, the ideal Republican.
> 
> I wonder what his handlers will tell him opinion is tomorrow.
Click to expand...


Perhaps we should ask Senator Menendez about obuma's throwing him under the bus.... wonder if he'll change his votes just for a little revenge?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Faun said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....
> 
> The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.
> 
> Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.
Click to expand...



Yep.

Undermining and weakening the US was and is the point.

RWs can never again pretend any of it is about Obama. The Repubs proved its not and never has been.

Traitors.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Sure, not like a narcissistic President who is never told he is wrong, lies and generally makes bad policy 
bypassing Congress to make a treaty-like proposal with one of the most dangerous and unstable gov't
in world history .... has any thing to do with it


----------



## Vigilante

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.



And Piglosi going against Bush with Assad in Syria?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

1stRambo said:


>




Ya _*NAILED* IT!_


----------



## Vigilante

Neotrotsky said:


> Sure, not like a narcissistic President who is never told he is wrong, lies and generally makes bad policy
> bypassing Congress to make a treaty-like proposal with one of the most dangerous and unstable gov't
> in world history .... has any thing to do with it



How TRUE you are... all these subversives in here suffer from NPD!!!


----------



## idb

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.


Some good came from it though.
The Iranian Foreign Minister was good enough to take time out of his busy day to educate them on foreign diplomacy and the US Constitution.

There's always a positive if you look for it hard enough.


----------



## Statistikhengst

asterism said:


> Will all the staunch defenders of Presidential authority please post links to their criticisms of Pelosi in 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Malla/Associated Press
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, meeting today at the Presidential Palace in Damascus with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
> 
> By HASSAN M. FATTAH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
> Published: April 4, 2007
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0
Click to expand...



You make it way too simple.

She did not meet with a foreign leader during any kind of treaty negotiations and also not before an election cycle in that land.

Pay attention, and maybe you will learn something in life.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.




That's what they've been doing through his entire presidency. Now they're actually colluding with enemy.

Traitors.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Statistikhengst said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will all the staunch defenders of Presidential authority please post links to their criticisms of Pelosi in 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Malla/Associated Press
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, meeting today at the Presidential Palace in Damascus with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
> 
> By HASSAN M. FATTAH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
> Published: April 4, 2007
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make it way too simple.
> 
> She did not meet with a foreign leader during any kind of treaty negotiations and also not before an election cycle in that land.
> 
> Pay attention, and maybe you will learn something in life.
Click to expand...



She didn't give them carte blanche go-ahead for weapons like the Repubs did with this letter.

And she didn't commit a felony, like the Repubs did.

Traitors.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Fools never learn
Papa Obama was only a good student of agitation
not history


----------



## Vigilante

Statistikhengst said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will all the staunch defenders of Presidential authority please post links to their criticisms of Pelosi in 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Malla/Associated Press
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, meeting today at the Presidential Palace in Damascus with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
> 
> By HASSAN M. FATTAH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
> Published: April 4, 2007
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make it way too simple.
> 
> She did not meet with a foreign leader during any kind of treaty negotiations and also not before an election cycle in that land.
> 
> Pay attention, and maybe you will learn something in life.
Click to expand...


Oh, I mean she went against her president's orders, and the Senators sent a letter against Obuma's wishes...I see a BIG similarity!

Despite Bush rebuke Pelosi visits Syria - The Boston Globe

Want to discuss Teddy Kennedy's letter to the Kremil asking for help with the 1984 campaign?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Statistikhengst said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The petition to charge the 47 with treason has jumped from 8,900 when I signed it to 21,900 in just under 2 hours time....
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The petition to charge the 47 with treason, which was at 21,900 just 5 hours ago, is now at 92,600.... it was at 9,800 when I signed it about 8 hours ago...
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.
Click to expand...



And just 49 minutes later, more than 100,000 have signed the petition to charge the 47 Senators with treason.


----------



## idb

Oops.
The letter has been sent back from Iran with a grading at the top.
A little bit disappointing.
"Must do better."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Vigilante said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Piglosi going against Bush with Assad in Syria?
Click to expand...

And you and most others on the right are also cowards, fools, and partisan hacks having a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.


----------



## rightwinger

Republicans showed themselves to be nothing more than stooges in Irans pocket

When given a choice, Republicans showed how much they hate America


----------



## Vigilante

Statistikhengst said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The petition to charge the 47 with treason has jumped from 8,900 when I signed it to 21,900 in just under 2 hours time....
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The petition to charge the 47 with treason, which was at 21,900 just 5 hours ago, is now at 92,600.... it was at 9,800 when I signed it about 8 hours ago...
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And just 49 minutes later, more than 100,000 have signed the petition to charge the 47 Senators with treason.
Click to expand...


Well HELL, isn't the Obomanation SUPPOSED to do something If they get 100,000 signatures....want to bet he does NOTHING...as usual?....


----------



## Vigilante

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Piglosi going against Bush with Assad in Syria?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you and most others on the right are also cowards, fools, and partisan hacks having a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.
Click to expand...


Yes, is all about this POS attitude towards the Constitution YOU are supposed to protect, and his agendas...


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> Republicans showed themselves to be nothing more than stooges in Irans pocket
> 
> When given a choice, Republicans showed how much they hate America


----------



## Billo_Really

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...

The GOP is nothing but a bunch of Israeli bitches, do what they're told like good little whores.

They love sucking that Israeli dick!


----------



## Neotrotsky

Really, they create their own problem-- before the war FDR was a fan of Mussolini 
Once people saw the horrors of socialist movements after the war, the left ran hard to redefine themselves, again


----------



## Statistikhengst

Billo_Really said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP is nothing but a bunch of Israeli bitches, do what they're told like good little whores.
> 
> They love sucking that Israeli dick!
Click to expand...


I have even less love for antisemitic jerks like you than for the mullahs in Iran. And I hate the mullahs.


----------



## Vigilante

Billo_Really said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP is nothing but a bunch of Israeli bitches, do what they're told like good little whores.
> 
> They love sucking that Israeli dick!
Click to expand...


I thought Stashisfuckingnameis  is a German Jew and supports Israel.... Was I mistaken?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Neotrotsky said:


> Really, they create their own problem-- before the war FDR was a fan of Mussolini
> Once people saw the horrors of socialist movements after the war, the left ran hard to redefine themselves, again




I love it when fascists go on this weird bent.


----------



## kaz

Political Junky said:


> Hopefully this will come back to bite those GOP Senators in the ass.



It's the Obama doctrine of hope and change.  You unilaterally change the constitution and hope it sticks


----------



## Vigilante

kaz said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully this will come back to bite those GOP Senators in the ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the Obama doctrine of hope and change.  You unilaterally change the constitution and hope it sticks
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

Statistikhengst said:


> I have even less love for antisemitic jerks like you than for the mullahs in Iran. And I hate the mullahs.


Why would I hate Jews?

And what did I say that had anything to do with Judaism?


----------



## asterism

Statistikhengst said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will all the staunch defenders of Presidential authority please post links to their criticisms of Pelosi in 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Malla/Associated Press
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, meeting today at the Presidential Palace in Damascus with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
> 
> By HASSAN M. FATTAH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
> Published: April 4, 2007
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You make it way too simple.
> 
> She did not meet with a foreign leader during any kind of treaty negotiations and also not before an election cycle in that land.
> 
> Pay attention, and maybe you will learn something in life.
Click to expand...


Pay attention, politics should stop at the water's edge.  The GOP is just as bad as the Democrats on this.


----------



## Liminal

Vigilante said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP is nothing but a bunch of Israeli bitches, do what they're told like good little whores.
> 
> They love sucking that Israeli dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Stashisfuckingnameis  is a German Jew and supports Israel.... Was I mistaken?
Click to expand...


Could be.  You told people you were in Vietnam, and look what a mistake that turned out to be.


----------



## Lakhota

Can you believe this shit.  These NaziCon scumbags have no shame.

*Republicans Blame Obama For Tom Cotton Letter*


----------



## asterism

Luddly Neddite said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they've been doing through his entire presidency. Now they're actually colluding with enemy.
> 
> Traitors.
Click to expand...


An open letter is not "colluding with the enemy."  Sheesh!

This is colluding with the enemy:

"We don't mind being used"  --Jim McDermott

NBC News Whitewashes History on Iran Diplomacy The Weekly Standard


----------



## Vigilante

Liminal said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP is nothing but a bunch of Israeli bitches, do what they're told like good little whores.
> 
> They love sucking that Israeli dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Stashisfuckingnameis  is a German Jew and supports Israel.... Was I mistaken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be.  You told people you were in Vietnam, and look what a mistake that turned out to be.
Click to expand...


It was.


----------



## Liminal

Vigilante said:


> Liminal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP is nothing but a bunch of Israeli bitches, do what they're told like good little whores.
> 
> They love sucking that Israeli dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Stashisfuckingnameis  is a German Jew and supports Israel.... Was I mistaken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be.  You told people you were in Vietnam, and look what a mistake that turned out to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was.
Click to expand...


Uh-huh, so you keep saying.  Feel free to elaborate.


----------



## rightwinger

Obama is not a master of diplomacy like Republicans are

He should begin all negotiations by declaring Iran as part of the Axis of Evil


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> Obama is not a master of diplomacy like Republicans are
> 
> He should begin all negotiations by declaring Iran as part of the Axis of Evil


----------



## rightwinger

Vigilante said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans showed themselves to be nothing more than stooges in Irans pocket
> 
> When given a choice, Republicans showed how much they hate America
Click to expand...


Our President has killed more ISIS fighters than any leader on earth

It is Republicans who pander to them by providing just what ISIS wants


----------



## 1stRambo

Statistikhengst said:


> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Real Americans do not stab America in the back like the GOP just did
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, how true? And they don`t ban things?
> View attachment 37658
> View attachment 37659
> View attachment 37660
> View attachment 37661
> "GTP"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do love it when RWNJs bellyache about everything. It is so fun to watch.
Click to expand...


Yo, you mean you hate it when you`re wrong!

"GTP"


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans showed themselves to be nothing more than stooges in Irans pocket
> 
> When given a choice, Republicans showed how much they hate America
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our President has killed more ISIS fighters than any leader on earth
> 
> It is Republicans who pander to them by providing just what ISIS wants
Click to expand...


Did he do it hand to hand... Use a sniper rifle..... or throw a hand grenade in close combat?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> The thing to remember here reader, is that John Kerry is the front guy for the deal to help Iran acquire Nuclear weapons.
> 
> And John Kerry committed Treason against the United States way back in 1970.
> 
> "_by Kerry’s own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.
> 
> Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question-and-answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped “immediately and unilaterally.” Then Kerry added: “I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government._”
> 
> _“Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party.”
> 
> "Kerry, through his actions, completely adopted the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communist, enemy of the United States."_
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> So, the Left is wetting their collective pant over 47 US Senators writing an open letter to a hostile regime, informing them that any agreement they make with the subversive regime, toward any end which could potentially lead to their acquiring nuclear weapons... thus aiding and abetting the means of that hostile nation to injure the United States, her interests and allies... even as those in charge of such negotiations: HAVE LONG ADMITTED TO FELONIOUS BEHAVIOR WHEREIN THEY ADOPTED THE RHETORIC AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ENEMY OF THE UNITED STATES..., wherein he took >then< as he is taking now: adoption of, thus adherence to, the position of those who have demonstrated hostility toward the people of the United States, in pursuing policy which adheres to the policy of a foreign hostile and  aiding their means to injure the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry was speaking as a young wounded warrior who saw wrong and tried to right it - half a century ago.  47 senators acted politically, in lock-step, and with one sole concern - winning the White House at any cost.
> 
> As I've previously posted, you must be nuts to continue to post irrelevancies of the partisan hack kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He tried to right nothing other than his own self gratification.  He is no hero and a despicable yet disgusting human being for his actions against the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was on active duty during the Vietnam War (1967-1969) and can assure you the opinions expressed by Kerry then were quite common among the military even that early.
Click to expand...


Indeed they were... The North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong were unanimous in their support of Kerry's 7 Point Plan,  which was created by the North Vietnamese communists was nothing more than a Democrat “surrender”, subversion of US interests and treason of the first order.


----------



## Political Junky

Iran called the letter propaganda. That must be so embarrassing for the signatories.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> The petition to charge the 47 with treason has jumped from 8,900 when I signed it to 21,900 in just under 2 hours time....
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.



ROFLMNAO!  

You STILL "FEEL" that TREASON is a function of popular opinion?  

*ROFLMNAO!*​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Political Junky said:


> Iran called the letter propaganda. That must be so embarrassing for the signatories.



LOL!

Which is Propaganda...that YOU decided to "Report IT" here...  

LMAO!  

You can't make this crap up... .


----------



## Kondor3

Wry Catcher said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> zeke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, for better or worse, the Pubs have served notice that they plan to overturn much of Obumble's work, if they win in 2016.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, I think that was their objective in 2012 as well. Especially that pesky Omamcare. How'd that work out for them hateful Rethugs? Is that done yet? Or are they waiting till they overturn the illegal immigrant situation? How's that working out for them?
> 
> But really, the IF they win part is the truth. Big IF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed - although reversals were not attempted to either the ObamaCare and Immigration situations, with Pubs in control of both Congress and the Oval Office - which is, of course, their hope for 2016...
> 
> If the Pubs gain control of both Congress AND the White House in 2016, some of His Majesty's social re-engineering will be overthrown so frigging fast that it'll make our heads spin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After the heads spin, then what?
Click to expand...

Nothing, other than the gubmint laying-out less money?


----------



## Kondor3

AzMike said:


> So the senate who the president is on a daily basis threatening to bypass inserted their authority on a president who threatened to bypass them on this Iran deal and now the leftards are going apeshit crazy.
> 
> Some days it's just fun to watch the meltdown.


Yes, I keep hearing cat-calls of 'treason'... a sure sign that the Pubs have got their attention.


----------



## BlackSand

rightwinger said:


> Our President has killed more ISIS fighters than any leader on earth
> 
> It is Republicans who pander to them by providing just what ISIS wants



Our President has killed a few beers ... And maybe a bird at the golf course.
King Abdullah of Jordan has killed more ISIS fighters than President Obama.

.


----------



## Lakhota

Hmmm, ain't that interesting...


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

TheOldSchool said:


> Lock the treasonous dogs up and throw away the key



Well I'm all for it. 

And while we certainly have the votes in the House... I still doubt that the Senate has the balls to remove the traitor. 

Then, you're stuck with ... LOL!  Joe Biden...


----------



## Kondor3

Political Junky said:


> Iran called the letter propaganda. That must be so embarrassing for the signatories.


Nowhere _*near*_ as embarrassing as being President when Congress invites foreign heads of state to address them without so much as a by-your-leave, and when they publicly bitch-slap you with a harsh letter to a potential Enemy, warning them that the lenient terms of the Wussbag-in-Chief will not be honored by the country once you leave office.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Faun said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....
> 
> The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.
> 
> Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.
Click to expand...


excellent point!  Country First was always a slogan, one they dropped along with the Big Tent liel  Today's Republican Party is beginning to look like the Democratic Party in the first five decades of the 19th Century.


----------



## Neotrotsky

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.





Statistikhengst said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, they create their own problem-- before the war FDR was a fan of Mussolini
> Once people saw the horrors of socialist movements after the war, the left ran hard to redefine themselves, again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when fascists go on this weird bent.
Click to expand...


Indeed from the 'right wing" Dailykos...

FDR s Endorsement of Benito Mussolini Is Stunningly Tone Deaf and Troubling


_            Earlier last century, President Franklin Roosevelt endorsed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini as an admirable Italian gentleman.

           He also said, in a letter to an American envoy, of all people, that I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished._



truth is hard for the left, in fact it is their worst enemy


----------



## daws101

Liminal said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The GOP is nothing but a bunch of Israeli bitches, do what they're told like good little whores.
> 
> They love sucking that Israeli dick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Stashisfuckingnameis  is a German Jew and supports Israel.... Was I mistaken?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Could be.  You told people you were in Vietnam, and look what a mistake that turned out to be.
Click to expand...

chuck Connors is gay, just thought you should know btw that pic is racist.


----------



## daws101

with all the irrelevant gop shit spewed in this thread....,,,,


----------



## TemplarKormac

I've got a newsflash for a bunch of folks here:

If the president signs a deal with Iran, it qualifies as a treaty under US law, and it must be ratified by the Senate. However, Obama can also enter into an _*executive agreement*_ with Iran which would essentially do an end run around Congress. The catch there is that it is legal. Why? Because there is precedent, in WWII, FDR went around Congress to send arms and assistance to Britain.

One of two things will happen:

1) Let's say he signs a deal, that makes it a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate:

In Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 (1956) the court held that our Constitution must be be regarded above a negotiated or finalized treaty between the United States and a foreign nation.

In this ruling, the Reid court stated:

"*No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress,* _*or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution*_. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land...’

"There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result..."

"It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. – pgs 500-519).

"In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined."

2) *Obama enters into an executive agreement*, which has the force of an executive order, and legal as far as article 2 is concerned. However, the first paragraph in the above scenario applies here also, the key word is "agreement." The ruling mentions both treaties and agreements made by any branch of government with foreign nations.

More from the Reid ruling:

"There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument."


----------



## TemplarKormac

"Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."

-James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution

In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

TyroneSlothrop said:


>




And Salon called it "stupid". 

Looks like this just might backfire on the traitors.


----------



## Neotrotsky

too funny,  the radical left hangs their hopes on kissing the asses of the Iranian Mullahs
Like anyone believes they will keep their word- sure we can trust them

Tough sell to the American people
good luck with that


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> excellent point!  Country First was always a slogan, one they dropped along with the Big Tent liel  Today's Republican Party is beginning to look like the Democratic Party in the first five decades of the 19th Century.



LOL!

Now isn't that _PRECIOUS?_

Imagine an irony SO SWEET that Leftists are speaking in broad terms of _'love for country'_.


ROFL!

_Hysterical..._

I think a moderator on this very site said it best, when it said:

*THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*

*It turns out that this is because Nature precludes the means for one to simultaneously adhering to both the Thesis and Antithesis.*

*Which simply means that those who are promoting the means for nations which are vehemently hostile to the United States, to acquire NUCLEAR WEAPONS cannot simultaneously claim that they're also person who recognizes, respects, defends and adheres TO the principles that define America; OKA: An American!*

*See how that works?*​


----------



## Luddly Neddite

2aguy said:


> No....allowing Iran to get a nuclear weapon is stabbing America in the back......at least there are some republicans who know how to fight back......




Are there any Rs fighting back? Or are they all just going along with the 47 to help Iran get a nuclear weapon?

Seriously, has anyone heard of even one Repub who is siding with the US?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Neotrotsky said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, they create their own problem-- before the war FDR was a fan of Mussolini
> Once people saw the horrors of socialist movements after the war, the left ran hard to redefine themselves, again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when fascists go on this weird bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed from the 'right wing" Dailykos...
> 
> FDR s Endorsement of Benito Mussolini Is Stunningly Tone Deaf and Troubling
> 
> 
> _            Earlier last century, President Franklin Roosevelt endorsed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini as an admirable Italian gentleman.
> 
> He also said, in a letter to an American envoy, of all people, that I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished._
> 
> 
> 
> truth is hard for the left, in fact it is their worst enemy
Click to expand...


Just very well said...  .


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.



Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw

Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.  

There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.

However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw
> 
> Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.
Click to expand...


Perhaps you didn't see the post above the one you quoted. I know exactly what an EA is. It is legal to a point. Reid v Covert covers that. 

Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 1956 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw
> 
> Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.
Click to expand...


So ya don't feel that promoting the means of nations vehemently hostile to JEWS... acquiring Nuclear weapons, is indicative of a threat to THE JEWISH NATION?

ROFLMNAO!

What you're seeing there is what is OKA: _*THE PROBLEM!*_


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.



A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.
Click to expand...


Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations.  A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw
> 
> Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ya don't feel that promoting the means of nations vehemently hostile to JEWS... acquiring Nuclear weapons, is indicative of a threat to THE JEWISH NATION?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> What you're seeing there is what is OKA: _*THE PROBLEM!*_
Click to expand...


Iran is not insane.  Israel has it's own set of nukes as do it's allies.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw
> 
> Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't see the post above the one you quoted. I know exactly what an EA is. It is legal to a point. Reid v Covert covers that.
> 
> Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 1956 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
Click to expand...


I'm just wondering why - suddenly - Republicans are having a hissy fit over something routinely done by presidents.

I think I know why...because, even with their limitations, they do carry the weight of law internationally and once in place, they are very difficult to dismantle.  The Republicans are trying to scuttle it because they won't have much effect on it afterwards.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Exactly, they are trying to stop another Papa Obama constitutional overreach


----------



## Coyote

There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.

Edited to add: Consider the SALT talks: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT Encyclopedia Britannica

Most of those agreements were executive agreements eventually leading to the ABM Treaty.

_...The Interim Agreement froze each side’s number of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at current levels for five years, pending negotiation of a more detailed SALT II. As an executive agreement, it did not require U.S. Senate ratification, but it was approved by Congress in a joint resolution_

The agreements being negotiated with Iran are similar.  Neither side can get everything they want but if they put a freeze on it for ten years, they can buy time to negotiate something more permenant.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Iran is not insane.  Israel has it's own set of nukes as do it's allies.



Yes, yes deary... and taking the life of the child in your womb is not murder, if that child truly IS an inconvenience... and paying people to not work, actually improves the likelihood that they'll look for and accept a job, just as no 30 year old pot head lives in their parents basement, because they're all highly functioning individuals earning extremely large incomes, doing incredibly complex things... and perverse reasoning which induces one to act upon sexual urges which deviate 180 degrees from the human physiological standard, is _perfectly normal... . 

I understand... . _


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations.  A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.
Click to expand...


I notice how so many people want to put wings and a halo on this deal and call it glorious, but it simply isn't. This deal is being negotiated without input from Israel, therefore whatever is being discussed is not in the best interests of Israel. All Iran needs to do is stonewall and play nice until they have enough centrifuges to make a bomb. They are already 1/4th of the way there.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Political Junky said:


> Iran called the letter propaganda. That must be so embarrassing for the signatories.




And in other news, _

Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to world peace,” Iran has offered to mediate talks between congressional Republicans and President Obama._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.



So every President has done everything within their means to promote the interests of the enemy of United States, without tipping their hand that they're actually doing so... ?

Now setting aside the obvious example of William The Bubba... would ya have an example or two?


----------



## Neotrotsky

Papa Obama has the right to conduct as long as he stays within the bounds of American law; 
But, we all know he is trying to put in effect a defacto treaty and end run around congress,
Why, not ... he has taken rather constitutional actions already with the executive branch 

If he wants to bind future Presidents and Congresses, then the legislative branch should weighs in on the matter.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not insane.  Israel has it's own set of nukes as do it's allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes deary... and taking the life of the child in your womb is not murder, if that child truly IS an inconvenience... and paying people to not work, actually improves the likelihood that they'll look for and accept a job, just as no 30 year old pot head lives in their parents basement, because they're all highly functioning individuals earning extremely large incomes, doing incredibly complex things... and perverse reasoning which induces one to act upon sexual urges which deviate 180 degrees from the human physiological standard, is _perfectly normal... .
> 
> I understand... . _
Click to expand...


Now you are being silly.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations.  A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I notice how so many people want to put wings and a halo on this deal and call it glorious*, but it simply isn't. This deal is being negotiated without input from Israel, therefore whatever is being discussed is not in the best interests of Israel. All Iran needs to do is stonewall and play nice until they have enough centrifuges to make a bomb. They are already 1/4th of the way there.
Click to expand...


Actually, I don't see anyone doing that.

What it is is the best of a set of bad options.

Israel's input is lacking because Israel leaked critical information during the process in an attempt to scuttle it.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations.  A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice how so many people want to put wings and a halo on this deal and call it glorious, but it simply isn't. This deal is being negotiated without input from Israel, therefore whatever is being discussed is not in the best interests of Israel. All Iran needs to do is stonewall and play nice until they have enough centrifuges to make a bomb. They are already 1/4th of the way there.
Click to expand...


1. Your logic doesn't make sense. Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.

2. Where are you getting this "1/4 of the way there" claim?


----------



## Coyote

Neotrotsky said:


> Papa Obama has the right to conduct as long as he stays within the bounds of American law;
> But, we all know he is trying to put in effect a defacto treaty and end run around congress,
> Why, not ... he has taken rather constitutional actions already with the executive branch
> 
> *If he wants to bind future Presidents and Congresses, then the legislative branch should weighs in on the matter*.



Wow.  Suddenly, now, it matters?  Never did before did it?


----------



## Neotrotsky

Coyote said:


> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.
> 
> Edited to add: Consider the SALT talks: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> Most of those agreements were executive agreements eventually leading to the ABM Treaty.
> 
> _...The Interim Agreement froze each side’s number of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at current levels for five years, pending negotiation of a more detailed SALT II. As an executive agreement, it did not require U.S. Senate ratification, but it was approved by Congress in a joint resolution_
> 
> The agreements being negotiated with Iran are similar.  Neither side can get everything they want but if they put a freeze on it for ten years, they can buy time to negotiate something more permenant.





TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations.  A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice how so many people want to put wings and a halo on this deal and call it glorious, but it simply isn't. This deal is being negotiated without input from Israel, therefore whatever is being discussed is not in the best interests of Israel. All Iran needs to do is stonewall and play nice until they have enough centrifuges to make a bomb. They are already 1/4th of the way there.
Click to expand...



It also requires one to believe that Papa Obama is a good judge of character
That could be a hard sell


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So every President has done everything within their means to promote the interests of the enemy of United States, without tipping their hand that they're actually doing so... ?
> 
> Now setting aside the obvious example of William The Bubba... would ya have an example or two?
Click to expand...


An example supporting your distortion....is that what you are requesting?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Neotrotsky said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.
> 
> Edited to add: Consider the SALT talks: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> Most of those agreements were executive agreements eventually leading to the ABM Treaty.
> 
> _...The Interim Agreement froze each side’s number of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at current levels for five years, pending negotiation of a more detailed SALT II. As an executive agreement, it did not require U.S. Senate ratification, but it was approved by Congress in a joint resolution_
> 
> The agreements being negotiated with Iran are similar.  Neither side can get everything they want but if they put a freeze on it for ten years, they can buy time to negotiate something more permenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations.  A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice how so many people want to put wings and a halo on this deal and call it glorious, but it simply isn't. This deal is being negotiated without input from Israel, therefore whatever is being discussed is not in the best interests of Israel. All Iran needs to do is stonewall and play nice until they have enough centrifuges to make a bomb. They are already 1/4th of the way there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It also requires one to believe that Papa Obama is a good judge of character
> That could be a hard sell
Click to expand...



This is what you guys don't get. It's really this simple.

"Character" has _nothing_ to do with this. Nothing at all.

This is politics.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.



Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
Click to expand...


If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.

But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Coyote said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Papa Obama has the right to conduct as long as he stays within the bounds of American law;
> But, we all know he is trying to put in effect a defacto treaty and end run around congress,
> Why, not ... he has taken rather constitutional actions already with the executive branch
> 
> *If he wants to bind future Presidents and Congresses, then the legislative branch should weighs in on the matter*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  Suddenly, now, it matters?  Never did before did it?
Click to expand...


Not at all,  real treaties do matter

In 1975 Congress did not feel obligated to support past presidential promises to support
South Vietnam- Congress voted to not support regardless of past president negotiations

Regardless of what Papa Obama does with Iran, without a treaty, it is worthless to the 
American people.

It may have some value for Papa Obama and therefore the left feels obligated to support it
but it really is not a good reason


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
Click to expand...


Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.

Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran. 

Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
Click to expand...


What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.


----------



## TemplarKormac

But in the process the US will be forced to retaliate.  And most likely World War III will  begin.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.
Click to expand...




The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.

Where are you getting your information from?


----------



## Neotrotsky

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
Click to expand...



If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work 
Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.


Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
so, yeah it is a big thing


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Neotrotsky said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
Click to expand...


Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.

They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.


----------



## Neotrotsky

TemplarKormac said:


> But in the process the US will be forced to retaliate.  And most likely World War III will  begin.



While it could be possible, and the more cynical might say that Iran dropping such a bomb would
give the West the excuse they need to annihilate them 

They probably would gamble on the West response to be too weak and timid to actually
do anything like that


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
Click to expand...


Problem.  Iran isn't limited to its geographical borders. It holds influence over multiple countries in the ME.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem.  Iran isn't limited to its geographical borders. It holds influence over multiple countries in the ME.
Click to expand...


Iran has some level of influence in Syria and Iraq. That's about it.

The whole Iran empire-building meme is mostly just fantasy and fear-mongering.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.
> 
> Where are you getting your information from?
Click to expand...


Does "radioactive fallout" mean anything?


----------



## Coyote

Neotrotsky said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
Click to expand...


Iran behaves perfectly rationally and in it's self interest.  We may not agree with it's regional actions and support of terrorism in the region,  but that doesn't mean it's not rational.  And despite what you say they have proven to be a very stable regime so far.  As far as being a theocracy (which it is) that believes that suicidal acts can get one into heaven...there has been an remarkable dirth of Iranian suicide bombers.

Is it dangerous?  Probably...like Russia could be...like China could be....but it is rational and it cares about it's own survival.  Do we want to see it with a nuke?  No.  Nuclear proliferation is very undesirable particularly in the hands of countries like Iran.

If you want irrational I would offer North Korea.  A nuke in it's hands would be far more frightening.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem.  Iran isn't limited to its geographical borders. It holds influence over multiple countries in the ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has some level of influence in Syria and Iraq. That's about it.
> 
> The whole Iran empire-building meme is mostly just fantasy and fear-mongering.
Click to expand...


Uh, and what proof do you have that Iran's influence is that limited?


----------



## Neotrotsky

theDoctorisIn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
Click to expand...


Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational   


The people have been around that long but they have
change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time

How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?





Again, tough sell to make
it seems like a real loser


----------



## asterism

Coyote said:


> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.
> 
> Edited to add: Consider the SALT talks: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> Most of those agreements were executive agreements eventually leading to the ABM Treaty.
> 
> _...The Interim Agreement froze each side’s number of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at current levels for five years, pending negotiation of a more detailed SALT II. As an executive agreement, it did not require U.S. Senate ratification, but it was approved by Congress in a joint resolution_
> 
> The agreements being negotiated with Iran are similar.  Neither side can get everything they want but if they put a freeze on it for ten years, they can buy time to negotiate something more permenant.



Or provide a structure to flaut the agreement and then announce that they have nuclear weapons in a few years like North Korea.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.
> 
> Where are you getting your information from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does "radioactive fallout" mean anything?
Click to expand...


It does, but going from the way you're saying it, it doesn't mean what you think it does.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Coyote said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So every President has done everything within their means to promote the interests of the enemy of United States, without tipping their hand that they're actually doing so... ?
> 
> Now setting aside the obvious example of William The Bubba... would ya have an example or two?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An example supporting your distortion....is that what you are requesting?
Click to expand...


So you're claiming here that reality appears distorted to you?

Well, such is typical of the usage of deviant reasoning.  (That's sorta the downside to delusion.)


----------



## Coyote

TemplarKormac said:


> But in the process the US will be forced to retaliate.  And most likely World War III will  begin.



Exactly.  Which is why I seriously doubt Iran would nuke Israel (aside from the fact that Israel would obliterate it in return).


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem.  Iran isn't limited to its geographical borders. It holds influence over multiple countries in the ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has some level of influence in Syria and Iraq. That's about it.
> 
> The whole Iran empire-building meme is mostly just fantasy and fear-mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, and what proof do you have that Iran's influence is that limited?
Click to expand...


What "proof" do you have that Iran's influence is any more than that?


----------



## BlackSand

theDoctorisIn said:


> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.



Comparing the modern leaders of Iran to Cyrus who referred to the Jews as _"The Anointed of the Lord"_ ... would be a wee bit of a stretch.

.


----------



## Coyote

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So every President has done everything within their means to promote the interests of the enemy of United States, without tipping their hand that they're actually doing so... ?
> 
> Now setting aside the obvious example of William The Bubba... would ya have an example or two?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An example supporting your distortion....is that what you are requesting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're claiming here that reality appears distorted to you?
> 
> Well, such is typical of the usage of deviant reasoning.  (That's sorta the downside to delusion.)
Click to expand...


No.  I'm trying to make sense of your distorted question.  What are you asking for examples of?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

theDoctorisIn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.
> 
> Edited to add: Consider the SALT talks: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> Most of those agreements were executive agreements eventually leading to the ABM Treaty.
> 
> _...The Interim Agreement froze each side’s number of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at current levels for five years, pending negotiation of a more detailed SALT II. As an executive agreement, it did not require U.S. Senate ratification, but it was approved by Congress in a joint resolution_
> 
> The agreements being negotiated with Iran are similar.  Neither side can get everything they want but if they put a freeze on it for ten years, they can buy time to negotiate something more permenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger Israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations.  A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice how so many people want to put wings and a halo on this deal and call it glorious, but it simply isn't. This deal is being negotiated without input from Israel, therefore whatever is being discussed is not in the best interests of Israel. All Iran needs to do is stonewall and play nice until they have enough centrifuges to make a bomb. They are already 1/4th of the way there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It also requires one to believe that Papa Obama is a good judge of character
> That could be a hard sell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is what you guys don't get. It's really this simple.
> 
> "Character" has _nothing_ to do with this. Nothing at all.
> 
> This is politics.
Click to expand...


LOL!

And you guys thought when they started calling sexual deviants "Gay" that it was cute... and harmless.  

But in your defense, who could have known that they'd eventually profess publicly that character has no relevance to governance.  (But it does explain how they came up with 'The Constitution Protects the Right to murder your pre-born children.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

theDoctorisIn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
Click to expand...


Iran hasn't been Islamic for 6000 years.  The Irrational thing came along at precisely the same time that Islam came along.  And since then, Iran's been _crazier than a shit-house rat._

Go figure, ... huh?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no "constitutional overreach".  What he is doing is perfectly legit and has been done by every president before him.
> 
> Edited to add: Consider the SALT talks: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks SALT Encyclopedia Britannica
> 
> Most of those agreements were executive agreements eventually leading to the ABM Treaty.
> 
> _...The Interim Agreement froze each side’s number of ICBMs and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) at current levels for five years, pending negotiation of a more detailed SALT II. As an executive agreement, it did not require U.S. Senate ratification, but it was approved by Congress in a joint resolution_
> 
> The agreements being negotiated with Iran are similar.  Neither side can get everything they want but if they put a freeze on it for ten years, they can buy time to negotiate something more permenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 10 year sunset clause most certainly would.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depends on exactly what is in the agreement and no, even then - it could just mean back to another set of sanctions or negotiations.  A nuclear bomb isn't going to spring forth like Athena from the head of Zeus at the end of ten years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice how so many people want to put wings and a halo on this deal and call it glorious, but it simply isn't. This deal is being negotiated without input from Israel, therefore whatever is being discussed is not in the best interests of Israel. All Iran needs to do is stonewall and play nice until they have enough centrifuges to make a bomb. They are already 1/4th of the way there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It also requires one to believe that Papa Obama is a good judge of character
> That could be a hard sell
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is what you guys don't get. It's really this simple.
> 
> "Character" has _nothing_ to do with this. Nothing at all.
> 
> This is politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
> 
> And you guys thought when they started calling sexual deviants "Gay" that it was cute... and harmless.
> 
> But in your defense, who could have known that they'd eventually profess publicly that character has no relevance to governance.  (But it does explain how they came up with 'The Constitution Protects the Right to murder your pre-born children.)
Click to expand...


*Pats head*

It's cute how you think mentioning abortion in every thread is some sort of magical spell that makes your drivel relevant.


----------



## 1stRambo

Yo, how quickly we forget? Just a few days back the "Socialist Progressive Democrats" showed their true colors as traitors! They boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, our only ally in the middle east? Now who is the real Hypocrite in Washington?

"GTP"

"OBAMA AND HIS PUPPETS HATE AMERICA"


----------



## Coyote

1stRambo said:


> Yo, how quickly we forget? Just a few days back the "Socialist Progressive Democrats" showed their true colors as traitors! They boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, our only ally in the middle east? Now who is the real Hypocrite in Washington?
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> "OBAMA AND HIS PUPPETS HATE AMERICA"
> View attachment 37678



Umh...what does boycotting a speech have to do with anything?


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem.  Iran isn't limited to its geographical borders. It holds influence over multiple countries in the ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has some level of influence in Syria and Iraq. That's about it.
> 
> The whole Iran empire-building meme is mostly just fantasy and fear-mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, and what proof do you have that Iran's influence is that limited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "proof" do you have that Iran's influence is any more than that?
Click to expand...


As you so often point out, it isn't up to me to prove a negative.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Problem.  Iran isn't limited to its geographical borders. It holds influence over multiple countries in the ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has some level of influence in Syria and Iraq. That's about it.
> 
> The whole Iran empire-building meme is mostly just fantasy and fear-mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, and what proof do you have that Iran's influence is that limited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "proof" do you have that Iran's influence is any more than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you so often point out, it isn't up to me to prove a negative.
Click to expand...


You are making the positive claim here - that Iran has vast influence in surrounding countries.

It's your responsibility to back that up, not mine to prove wrong.


----------



## 1stRambo

Coyote said:


> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, how quickly we forget? Just a few days back the "Socialist Progressive Democrats" showed their true colors as traitors! They boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, our only ally in the middle east? Now who is the real Hypocrite in Washington?
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> "OBAMA AND HIS PUPPETS HATE AMERICA"
> View attachment 37678
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umh...what does boycotting a speech have to do with anything?
Click to expand...


Yo, use that tiny brain if possible?

"GTP"


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem.  Iran isn't limited to its geographical borders. It holds influence over multiple countries in the ME.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has some level of influence in Syria and Iraq. That's about it.
> 
> The whole Iran empire-building meme is mostly just fantasy and fear-mongering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, and what proof do you have that Iran's influence is that limited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "proof" do you have that Iran's influence is any more than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you so often point out, it isn't up to me to prove a negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making the positive claim here - that Iran has vast influence in surrounding countries.
> 
> It's your responsibility to back that up, not mine to prove wrong.
Click to expand...


We'll they have a ton of terrorists in their country AND are in all the other countries..... so.......  What does your common sense say they could possibly be doing?  God gave us a brain for a reason, and the ability to know right from wrong, which come to think of it people with mental retardation can even tell that...


----------



## Coyote

1stRambo said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, how quickly we forget? Just a few days back the "Socialist Progressive Democrats" showed their true colors as traitors! They boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, our only ally in the middle east? Now who is the real Hypocrite in Washington?
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> "OBAMA AND HIS PUPPETS HATE AMERICA"
> View attachment 37678
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umh...what does boycotting a speech have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo, use that tiny brain if possible?
> 
> "GTP"
Click to expand...


Translation: I can't come up with a coherent response so I'll just fling some monkey poo

So folks are now "traiters" if they boycott a foriegn national's speech?  Will wonders never cease...


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Judicial review said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has some level of influence in Syria and Iraq. That's about it.
> 
> The whole Iran empire-building meme is mostly just fantasy and fear-mongering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, and what proof do you have that Iran's influence is that limited?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "proof" do you have that Iran's influence is any more than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you so often point out, it isn't up to me to prove a negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making the positive claim here - that Iran has vast influence in surrounding countries.
> 
> It's your responsibility to back that up, not mine to prove wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll they have a ton of terrorists in their country AND are in all the other countries..... so.......  What does your common sense say they could possibly be doing?  God gave us a brain for a reason, and the ability to know right from wrong, which come to think of it people with mental retardation can even tell that...
Click to expand...


"Common sense" is often what people say when they don't understand a situation, yet still have an opinion on it.


----------



## Judicial review

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in the process the US will be forced to retaliate.  And most likely World War III will  begin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Which is why I seriously doubt Iran would nuke Israel (aside from the fact that Israel would obliterate it in return).
Click to expand...


Irans people don't support or control it's terroist regime.  So why would the regime care about it's people?


----------



## 1stRambo

Coyote said:


> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, how quickly we forget? Just a few days back the "Socialist Progressive Democrats" showed their true colors as traitors! They boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, our only ally in the middle east? Now who is the real Hypocrite in Washington?
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> "OBAMA AND HIS PUPPETS HATE AMERICA"
> View attachment 37678
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umh...what does boycotting a speech have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo, use that tiny brain if possible?
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: I can't come up with a coherent response so I'll just fling some monkey poo
> 
> So folks are now "traiters" if they boycott a foriegn national's speech?  Will wonders never cease...
Click to expand...


Yo, Traitors? If you can`t see it? Then maybe night school might help you, main subject needed: History!

"GTP"


----------



## Shrimpbox

Coyote said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw
> 
> Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't see the post above the one you quoted. I know exactly what an EA is. It is legal to a point. Reid v Covert covers that.
> 
> Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 1956 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why - suddenly - Republicans are having a hissy fit over something routinely done by presidents.
> 
> I think I know why...because, even with their limitations, they do carry the weight of law internationally and once in place, they are very difficult to dismantle.  The Republicans are trying to scuttle it because they won't have much effect on it afterwards.
Click to expand...


Coyote do you understand what you just said. Obama can unilaterally create international law that this country is bound by and the congress has no say in it. If such is true, and I don't believe it is, then you have just made the republican case. And remember, the only way Obama is able to pass big ticket items is to lie to the American people(see obamacare ) and keep details of a settlement secret until after it is passed(see FCC decision). Sound familiar.

But the floats in the repub stupid parade just keep on passing by. The lunatics are running the asylum. Let's see if i got this right. With two weeks to the treaty deadline, a deadline that would not have been met, repubs just gave Obama the perfect out. I could have had peace if it hadn't been for those warmongering republicans. The focus will be on stupid republicans and not an inept Obama. You can't even make this stuff up. Which Mensa republicans came up with this strategy gem. They couldn't have just waited and then sent a letter. And let's pile on after the Boehner invite to bibi undercutting the presidents negotiating stance by letting only the republican senators, not a bipartisan group,peacock strut in front of the mullahs to confirm their impotence and total lack of class. Democrats don't even have to worry about talking points, the republicans write em for them.

You know this can't get any worse and so I am offering myself up for free for 90 days as a pr/strategic consultant. Once I have turned around the republicans in Congress I will be available for the campaign. Suicide is not painless.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, and what proof do you have that Iran's influence is that limited?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "proof" do you have that Iran's influence is any more than that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you so often point out, it isn't up to me to prove a negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making the positive claim here - that Iran has vast influence in surrounding countries.
> 
> It's your responsibility to back that up, not mine to prove wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll they have a ton of terrorists in their country AND are in all the other countries..... so.......  What does your common sense say they could possibly be doing?  God gave us a brain for a reason, and the ability to know right from wrong, which come to think of it people with mental retardation can even tell that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Common sense" is often what people say when they don't understand a situation, yet still have an opinion on it.
Click to expand...


No, it's pretty clear to the majority of America....   Just not a select few.  

So the iranian regime isn't a bunch of terroists?  They don't silence their own people through force?  There simply a country looking for cheap energy even though they have oil?   I hope you explain this.  I'm looking forward to it.  Remember Doc, I'm the political genius here, and I always win.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Judicial review said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "proof" do you have that Iran's influence is any more than that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you so often point out, it isn't up to me to prove a negative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making the positive claim here - that Iran has vast influence in surrounding countries.
> 
> It's your responsibility to back that up, not mine to prove wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll they have a ton of terrorists in their country AND are in all the other countries..... so.......  What does your common sense say they could possibly be doing?  God gave us a brain for a reason, and the ability to know right from wrong, which come to think of it people with mental retardation can even tell that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Common sense" is often what people say when they don't understand a situation, yet still have an opinion on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's pretty clear to the majority of America....   Just not a select few.
> 
> So the iranian regime isn't a bunch of terroists?  They don't silence their own people through force?  There simply a country looking for cheap energy even though they have oil?   I hope you explain this.  I'm looking forward to it.  Remember Doc, I'm the political genius here, and I always win.
Click to expand...




Of course you are.


----------



## Judicial review

Shrimpbox said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw
> 
> Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't see the post above the one you quoted. I know exactly what an EA is. It is legal to a point. Reid v Covert covers that.
> 
> Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 1956 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why - suddenly - Republicans are having a hissy fit over something routinely done by presidents.
> 
> I think I know why...because, even with their limitations, they do carry the weight of law internationally and once in place, they are very difficult to dismantle.  The Republicans are trying to scuttle it because they won't have much effect on it afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote do you understand what you just said. Obama can unilaterally create international law that this country is bound by and the congress has no say in it. If such is true, and I don't believe it is, then you have just made the republican case. And remember, the only way Obama is able to pass big ticket items is to lie to the American people(see obamacare ) and keep details of a settlement secret until after it is passed(see FCC decision). Sound familiar.
> 
> But the floats in the repub stupid parade just keep on passing by. The lunatics are running the asylum. Let's see if i got this right. With two weeks to the treaty deadline, a deadline that would not have been met, repubs just gave Obama the perfect out. I could have had peace if it hadn't been for those warmongering republicans. The focus will be on stupid republicans and not an inept Obama. You can't even make this stuff up. Which Mensa republicans came up with this strategy gem. They couldn't have just waited and then sent a letter. And let's pile on after the Boehner invite to bibi undercutting the presidents negotiating stance by letting only the republican senators, not a bipartisan group,peacock strut in front of the mullahs to confirm their impotence and total lack of class. Democrats don't even have to worry about talking points, the republicans write em for them.
> 
> You know this can't get any worse and so I am offering myself up for free for 90 days as a pr/strategic consultant. Once I have turned around the republicans in Congress I will be available for the campaign. Suicide is not painless.
Click to expand...


It's one thing to understand political process, but that all changes when there is legit danger that could cost american lives, which this agreement will.  Don't worry, though, the GOP will come out ahead, regardless.  This deal with Iran will hurt him politically agreed to or not agreed to.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you so often point out, it isn't up to me to prove a negative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are making the positive claim here - that Iran has vast influence in surrounding countries.
> 
> It's your responsibility to back that up, not mine to prove wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We'll they have a ton of terrorists in their country AND are in all the other countries..... so.......  What does your common sense say they could possibly be doing?  God gave us a brain for a reason, and the ability to know right from wrong, which come to think of it people with mental retardation can even tell that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Common sense" is often what people say when they don't understand a situation, yet still have an opinion on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's pretty clear to the majority of America....   Just not a select few.
> 
> So the iranian regime isn't a bunch of terroists?  They don't silence their own people through force?  There simply a country looking for cheap energy even though they have oil?   I hope you explain this.  I'm looking forward to it.  Remember Doc, I'm the political genius here, and I always win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you are.
Click to expand...


The response I expected.  Thank you for your contribution to the JR fund, and I hope to see you again at the next one.  Have a very lovely day.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

theDoctorisIn said:


> *Pats head*  It's cute how you think mentioning abortion in every thread is some sort of magical spell that makes your drivel relevant.



You missed a spot on your head there gramps.  You've mussed up quite the cowlick... .
Abortion is merely another presentation of a disordered mind.  So where the issue is public professions advocating for policy that present mental disorder, I like to show other policy which stems from such.

You may disagree, but that's because of the deviant reasoning you're applying there.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Pats head*  It's cute how you think mentioning abortion in every thread is some sort of magical spell that makes your drivel relevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed a spot on your head there gramps.  You've mussed up quite the cowlick goin now.
> 
> Abortion is merely another presentation of a disordered mind.  So where the issue is public professions advocating for policy that present mental disorder, I like to show other policy which stems from such.
> 
> You may disagree, but that's because of the deviant reasoning you're applying there.
Click to expand...


I agree, constantly bringing up abortion in every conversation is a presentation of a disordered mind.

You should see someone about that, pubes.


----------



## asterism

theDoctorisIn said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
Click to expand...


That's not true at all.  Iran is the place where people have lived for 6000 years.  The societies that inhabit the land it has changed dramatically many times.  The current Iranians are not the former Persians by a long shot.

I don't consider wikipedia a credible source, but it's a good starting point for a one page chronology.

History of Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## theDoctorisIn

asterism said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not true at all.  Iran is the place where people have lived for 6000 years.  The societies that inhabit the land it has changed dramatically many times.  The current Iranians are not the former Persians by a long shot.
> 
> I don't consider wikipedia a credible source, but it's a good starting point for a one page chronology.
> 
> History of Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Nearly 2/3s of those currently living in Iran are Persian.


----------



## asterism

Neotrotsky said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational
> 
> 
> The people have been around that long but they have
> change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
> It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time
> 
> How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, tough sell to make
> it seems like a real loser
Click to expand...


Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

asterism said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational
> 
> 
> The people have been around that long but they have
> change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
> It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time
> 
> How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, tough sell to make
> it seems like a real loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.
Click to expand...


The leaders of Somalia are rational.

_Corruption_ isn't irrational.


----------



## asterism

theDoctorisIn said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not true at all.  Iran is the place where people have lived for 6000 years.  The societies that inhabit the land it has changed dramatically many times.  The current Iranians are not the former Persians by a long shot.
> 
> I don't consider wikipedia a credible source, but it's a good starting point for a one page chronology.
> 
> History of Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nearly 2/3s of those currently living in Iran are Persian.
Click to expand...


Descendants of Persians who are adherents to radical Shi'a Islam, not exactly on the same level as Al-Razi or the Banu Musa.


----------



## asterism

theDoctorisIn said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational
> 
> 
> The people have been around that long but they have
> change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
> It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time
> 
> How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, tough sell to make
> it seems like a real loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
Click to expand...


We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

asterism said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational
> 
> 
> The people have been around that long but they have
> change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
> It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time
> 
> How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, tough sell to make
> it seems like a real loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
Click to expand...


Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational
> 
> 
> The people have been around that long but they have
> change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
> It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time
> 
> How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, tough sell to make
> it seems like a real loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.
Click to expand...


A regime that has a soul purpose here of destroying the jews and Israel and is separate from their own people so much so that they use force to silence them, and you think they have their best interests in mind?  There own actions prove that they don't care about their people and could literally set their entire land on fire while they run away mobile.  
Oh that's right!!  They already are...


----------



## asterism

theDoctorisIn said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational
> 
> 
> The people have been around that long but they have
> change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
> It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time
> 
> How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, tough sell to make
> it seems like a real loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.
Click to expand...


You have a flaw in your logic.  It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

asterism said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germans are still around and they were pretty irrational
> 
> 
> The people have been around that long but they have
> change gov'ts and belief systems, multiple times over
> It has not even been called Iran for that long of a time
> 
> How can a nation that could soon be a nuclear power still legally stone women to death for adultery?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, tough sell to make
> it seems like a real loser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a flaw in your logic.  It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.
Click to expand...


There's no flaw in my logic.

How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Lakhota said:


> Hmmm, ain't that interesting...


Not really what is the rest of the quote?


----------



## asterism

theDoctorisIn said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a flaw in your logic.  It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no flaw in my logic.
> 
> How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?
Click to expand...


If I think I could get the cash, it would be in my self interest to do so.  That doesn't make me rational.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somalia has an even older civilization than Iran.  I doubt anyone would call their government rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a flaw in your logic.  It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no flaw in my logic.
> 
> How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?
Click to expand...


It is if they get away with it.  Tends to happen. UNLESS you are a minority...


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Hmmm, ain't that interesting...


Very, when taken in context.

The whole quote:
"Men are simple creatures. It doesn't take much to please us. The problem is women. How does an utterly simple creature understand an infinitely complex one? Since this creature realizes he is even simpler than most men, I knew only women could help me understand, well, women." 

But you and your pinko buddies don't like context when you can take a  line or two from a poignant, self effacing quote and make it something it was never intended to be.


----------



## Ernie S.

Faun said:


> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....
> 
> The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.
> 
> Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.
Click to expand...

No sir! The intended message is in 2 years you will face a POTUS with a set of balls.

obama cost us our last shred of respect in this world.
Iranians were laughing their asses off until 47 patriots warned them that the US won't always be a paper tiger.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Judicial review said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a flaw in your logic.  It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no flaw in my logic.
> 
> How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is if they get away with it.  Tends to happen. UNLESS you are a minority...
Click to expand...


People who rob gun stores with knifes tend to get away with it?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

asterism said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The leaders of Somalia are rational.
> 
> _Corruption_ isn't irrational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a flaw in your logic.  It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no flaw in my logic.
> 
> How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I think I could get the cash, it would be in my self interest to do so.  That doesn't make me rational.
Click to expand...


Self interest isn't just about getting things. It's also about self preservation.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> We obviously have different opinions regarding "rational."  I can accept that you think the leaders of Iran are rational since you think that the leaders of Somalia are rational also.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rational, in this context, means acting in their best interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a flaw in your logic.  It's irrational for me to rob a gun store with a knife, even if I'm acting in my own self interest to try and get the money in that cash register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no flaw in my logic.
> 
> How would robbing a gun store with a knife be in anyone's self interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is if they get away with it.  Tends to happen. UNLESS you are a minority...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People who rob gun stores with knifes tend to get away with it?
Click to expand...


Yes, if the one doing the robbing was the dictator or person above the law that they create.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.
> 
> Where are you getting your information from?
Click to expand...


From this, the detonation of Tsar Bomba. The blast wave (in this case), not the explosion itself caused the most damage. If you juxtapose the blast zone from Tsar Bomba onto Paris, the airburst would destroy everything within a 35 kilometer (21 mile) radius:







Now scale it down to a Variable Yield (Boosted) Uranium Fission Warhead, which can exceed the yield of a conventional Uranium Fission warheads, the highest yield as of now is 800 kilotons in the _eastern_ hemisphere (The US B83 is a variable yield 1.2 megatons, most powerful in the Western Hemisphere).


If for example a 800 kT weapon was surface detonated over Tel Aviv:

Fireball radius: 1.1 km = .68 miles

Air blast radius (20 psi) 1.98 km = 1.2 miles

Radiation radius (500 rem): 2.43 km = 2.4 miles

Air blast radius (5 psi): 4.25 km = 2.6 miles

Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 9.7 km = 6.0 miles

Death toll would exceed 529,000*, with 420,000* injuries. It would expose nearly 1/3rd of Israel to lethal or debilitating doses of radiation given a south southwest headwind blowing at 9 mph.

Now, Jerusalem with the same measurements:

585,000* dead with 390,000* injured. It would also expose at least 1/3rd of Israel to lethal or debilitating of doses of radiation given a southeast headwind of 9 mph.

The "destructive" radius is irrelevant.  Two detonations in those respective locations would kill 1,020,000* people at once simultaneously (at least three times more than final running tally of the bombs detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (135,000 dead) ending in 1950, and it took *9* years for that many to die) and 820,000* would be injured in that instant.

*=Numbers will vary on exact placement of the strike

Calculations derived from NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.
> 
> Where are you getting your information from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does "radioactive fallout" mean anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does, but going from the way you're saying it, it doesn't mean what you think it does.
Click to expand...


"Destruction" in this case is a mutual term. When the explosion and fallout do their toll, it will amount to obliteration of a sovereign nation.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.
> 
> Where are you getting your information from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From this, the detonation of Tsar Bomba. The blast wave (in this case), not the explosion itself caused the most damage. If you juxtapose the blast zone from Tsar Bomba onto Paris, the airburst would destroy everything within a 35 kilometer (21 mile) radius:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now scale it down to a Variable Yield (Boosted) Uranium Fission Warhead, which can exceed the yield of a conventional Uranium Fission warheads, the highest yield as of now is 800 kilotons in the _eastern_ hemisphere (The US B83 is a variable yield 1.2 megatons, most powerful in the Western Hemisphere).
> 
> 
> If for example it was surface detonated over Tel Aviv:
> 
> Fireball radius: 1.1 km = .68 miles
> 
> Air blast radius (20 psi) 1.98 km = 1.2 miles
> 
> Radiation radius (500 rem): 2.43 km = 2.4 miles
> 
> Air blast radius (5 psi): 4.25 km = 2.6 miles
> 
> Thermal radiation radius (3rd degree burns): 9.7 km = 6.0 miles
> 
> Death toll would exceed 529,000*, with 420,000* injuries. It would expose nearly 1/3rd of Israel to lethal or debilitating doses of radiation given a south southwest headwind blowing at 9 mph.
> 
> Now, Jerusalem with the same measurements:
> 
> 585,000* dead with 390,000* injured. It would also expose at least 1/3rd of Israel to lethal or debilitating of doses of radiation given a southeast headwind of 9 mph.
> 
> The "destructive" radius is irrelevant.  Two detonations in those respective locations would kill 1,020,000* people at once simultaneously (over 3 times more than final running tally of the bombs detonated in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ending in 1950, and it took *9* years for that many to die) and 820,000* would be injured in that instant. That is 10 times as much as were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
> 
> *=Numbers will vary on exact placement of the strike
> 
> Calculations derived from NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein
Click to expand...


You're not getting it.

Iran won't be able to build a boosted _uranium_ fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons.

It takes _years_ of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The largest uranium fission bomb (the only sort of nuclear weapon possible for Iran to build) ever built had a destructive radius of less than 5 miles.
> 
> Where are you getting your information from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does "radioactive fallout" mean anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It does, but going from the way you're saying it, it doesn't mean what you think it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Destruction" in this case is a mutual term. When the explosion and fallout do their toll, it will amount to obliteration of a sovereign nation.
Click to expand...


No, it's just not. The world doesn't work the way it does in thriller movies.

Iran simply doesn't have the technology for it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

theDoctorisIn said:


> I agree, constantly bringing up abortion in every conversation is a presentation of a disordered mind.
> 
> You should see someone about that, pubes.



Well you're getting closer Vulva... But abortion is the consequence is mental disorder.  Noting such, is just sound reason..., which when set in contest against unsound reasoning... is UNBEATABLE!  


LOL!  As you so slowly learnin'.

You seem to think that because mental disorder is becoming common, that it's "Normal".  You should try to come to grips with the self-evident truth: It's not... .


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

theDoctorisIn said:


> You're not getting it.
> 
> Iran won't be able to build a boosted _uranium_ fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons.
> 
> It takes _years_ of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.



Yes, yes...  Because Iran is WAY OVER THERE in 1943...   And there's probably no way to split the atom anyway.

Great Work Tehran Betty!  You're doin' a FINE JOB swingin' for Islam.


----------



## Plasmaball

TemplarKormac said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it comes to that - everyone will get the blunt end of the deal because Israel will strike back and then everyone will go nuts.
> 
> But Iran is not insane.  It wants to be a major regional player but it does not want to destroy itself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What people don't seem to grasp is that there will be no Isreal if Iran nukes them. Israel won't be there to strike back.
Click to expand...

and you have no clue as to what you are talking about as usual. Iran fires a nuke, israel will see it and just fire back instantly.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> Iran won't be able to build a boosted _uranium_ fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons. It takes _years_ of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.



Heh, so, you think Iran is limited merely by its own technology? I seriously doubt that. And you forget how long the Iranian nuclear program has been active. 

Alright then, so, Iran has enough nuclear fuel at the moment to make 7 implosion style nuclear warheads (that of which you just described)

If they launched just 5 and detonated them 4 miles above the surfaces at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, and Ashdod (Israel's 5 largest cities), you would see nearly 300,000 people die at once. It took 9 years for that many to die from the initial explosions, radiation burns and exposure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given how small Israel is, the death toll would be magnified.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> Iran simply doesn't have the technology for it.



Even with Russia and China as their allies? Come now.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran won't be able to build a boosted _uranium_ fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons. It takes _years_ of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, so, you think Iran is limited merely by its own technology? I seriously doubt that. And you forget how long the Iranian nuclear program has been active.
> 
> Alright then, so, Iran has enough nuclear fuel at the moment to make 7 implosion style nuclear warheads (that of which you just described)
> 
> If they launched just 5 and detonated them 4 miles above the surfaces at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, and Ashdod (Israel's 5 largest cities), you would see nearly 300,000 people die at once. It took 9 years for that many to die from the initial explosions, radiation burns and exposure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given how small Israel is, the death toll would be magnified.
Click to expand...


No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.

You're also missing a really big part of the picture. Bombs have to be tested. They don't just spring into being. Implosion triggers have to be designed, and tested. None of those tests will be secret from us, or from Russia, or from China. (Hint: they don't want another member of the club, either).

There is no conceivable scenario in which Iran could _surprise_ Israel with a bomb.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran simply doesn't have the technology for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even with Russia and China as their allies? Come now.
Click to expand...


Russia and China aren't Iran's "allies". They don't want Iran to have a bomb any more than we do.

_No one_ in the club wants new members.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

It's pretty likely that Israel has the satellites to see an Iranian bomb test, too.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.



Not true:

http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/140129/clapper.pdf

Iran can now build and deliver nukes US intel reports The Times of Israel


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true:
> 
> http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/140129/clapper.pdf
> 
> Iran can now build and deliver nukes US intel reports The Times of Israel
Click to expand...


I think you should re-read that report. It doesn't say what you think it does.

It's actually pretty clear in saying that Iran is stockpiling 20% enriched uranium, and not enriching it further.

A uranium fission bomb requires 90+% enriched uranium.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true:
> 
> http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/140129/clapper.pdf
> 
> Iran can now build and deliver nukes US intel reports The Times of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should re-read that report. It doesn't say what you think it does.
> 
> It's actually pretty clear in saying that Iran is stockpiling 20% enriched uranium, and not enriching it further.
> 
> A uranium fission bomb requires 90+% enriched uranium.
Click to expand...


According to the enrichment process, when you enrich it to 20% you have done almost all the work to further enrich it to 90%. Clearly you aren't that gullible.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true:
> 
> http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/140129/clapper.pdf
> 
> Iran can now build and deliver nukes US intel reports The Times of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should re-read that report. It doesn't say what you think it does.
> 
> It's actually pretty clear in saying that Iran is stockpiling 20% enriched uranium, and not enriching it further.
> 
> A uranium fission bomb requires 90+% enriched uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the enrichment process, when you enrich it to 20% you have done almost all the work to further enrich it to 90%. Clearly you aren't that gullible.
Click to expand...


Where are you getting your information about the enrichment process?


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran won't be able to build a boosted _uranium_ fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons. It takes _years_ of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, so, you think Iran is limited merely by its own technology? I seriously doubt that. And you forget how long the Iranian nuclear program has been active.
> 
> Alright then, so, Iran has enough nuclear fuel at the moment to make 7 implosion style nuclear warheads (that of which you just described)
> 
> If they launched just 5 and detonated them 4 miles above the surfaces at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, and Ashdod (Israel's 5 largest cities), you would see nearly 300,000 people die at once. It took 9 years for that many to die from the initial explosions, radiation burns and exposure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given how small Israel is, the death toll would be magnified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.
> 
> You're also missing a really big part of the picture. Bombs have to be tested. They don't just spring into being. Implosion triggers have to be designed, and tested. None of those tests will be secret from us, or from Russia, or from China. (Hint: they don't want another member of the club, either).
> 
> There is no conceivable scenario in which Iran could _surprise_ Israel with a bomb.
Click to expand...


Dude, they have oil over there.. why do they need uranium?  Answer this and I will leave you alone for 24 hours.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true:
> 
> http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/140129/clapper.pdf
> 
> Iran can now build and deliver nukes US intel reports The Times of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should re-read that report. It doesn't say what you think it does.
> 
> It's actually pretty clear in saying that Iran is stockpiling 20% enriched uranium, and not enriching it further.
> 
> A uranium fission bomb requires 90+% enriched uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the enrichment process, when you enrich it to 20% you have done almost all the work to further enrich it to 90%. Clearly you aren't that gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your information about the enrichment process?
Click to expand...



"Increasing the percentage of U-235 becomes progressively easier, as explained in a 2012 glossary by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Harvard Kennedy School.

If the aim is to reach 90 per cent, getting to 3.5 per cent requires some 75 per cent of the work, and once 20 per cent is attained, nine-tenths of the job is done.

For this reason, when in February 2010 Iran began enriching to 20 per cent alarm bells rang. This dramatically shortens the time needed – in theory – to produce a bomb's worth of weapons-grade uranium.

Iran could, in theory, produce weapons-grade uranium from its stockpile of uranium enriched to five per cent using its existing enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo."

Iran nuclear talks what you need to know about uranium enrichment - Telegraph


----------



## TemplarKormac

To state my case further:

"The deadline for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is something of a moving target, but right now negotiators need to wrap things up by June 2015. The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States — along with Germany, have until then to strike a deal with the Islamic republic. If all goes the way the United States hopes, a signed agreement will keep Iran out of the nuclear weapons club.

For now, the two sides are operating under an interim agreement, which rolls back Iran’s stock of enriched uranium and freezes the country’s capability to produce nuclear materials that could be used to make a nuclear bomb. In exchange, Iran can sell its oil more freely and gain access to millions of dollars in frozen assets.

One element that’s fully expected in a long-term arrangement is a limit on the number and kinds of centrifuges Iran can use to enrich uranium. Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell said there’s an irony in that.

"If you are going to have a nuclear weapons program, 5,000 is pretty much the number you need," Morell, now a CBS analyst, said on _Charlie Rose_. "If you have a power program, you need a lot more. By limiting them to a small number of centrifuges, we are limiting them to the number you need for a weapon."

Morell told PunditFact he said 5,000 because that was lowest number he had heard was in play. The number of centrifuges in place today is a hair over 20,000, and a likely goal is to cut that to about 5,000. But Morell’s basic point struck us as just plain intriguing. We wanted to learn more about this idea that a nuclear power program would require many more centrifuges than you’d need for a bomb -- which by extension means that limiting centrifuge capacity is just one negotiating point out of many.

The consensus among the experts we reached is that Morell is on the money. Matthew Kroenig at Georgetown University told PunditFact the Morell is "is absolutely correct."  Ditto for Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association and David Albright of the Institute for Science and International Security.

Matthew Bunn at Harvardagreed with his colleagues.

"People think surely you must need a bigger enrichment system to make 90 percent enriched material for bombs than to make 4-5 percent enriched material for power reactors," Bunn said. "But exactly the opposite is true."

Bunn said there are two reasons. *First, you need tens of tons of material to fuel a power reactor for a year, but just tens of kilograms to make a bomb. According to theInternational Atomic Energy Agency, the threshold amount for a bomb is about 25 kilograms of the most highly enriched U-235.

And while yes, it’s harder to make 90 percent enriched uranium (bomb) than 4-5 percent enriched uranium (power), it’s not that much harder, Bunn said.

The toughest part in the process comes when you start with the raw uranium. By the time you’ve brought that to 4-5 percent, "you’ve already done more than 2/3 of the work of going all the way to 90 percent U-235 for weapons," Bunn said. "So the amount of work needed to make bomb material is only a modest amount more per kilogram, and the number of kilograms you need for bombs is 1,000 times less.*

Bottom line: Making bombs takes fewer centrifuges. And without a lot of centrifuges, it’s hard to make nuclear power. For the record, some centrifuge models are better than others, so that's also a factor.

The odd reality of Iran s centrifuges Enough for a bomb not power PunditFact


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true:
> 
> http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/140129/clapper.pdf
> 
> Iran can now build and deliver nukes US intel reports The Times of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you should re-read that report. It doesn't say what you think it does.
> 
> It's actually pretty clear in saying that Iran is stockpiling 20% enriched uranium, and not enriching it further.
> 
> A uranium fission bomb requires 90+% enriched uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to the enrichment process, when you enrich it to 20% you have done almost all the work to further enrich it to 90%. Clearly you aren't that gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where are you getting your information about the enrichment process?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Increasing the percentage of U-235 becomes progressively easier, as explained in a 2012 glossary by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and Harvard Kennedy School.
> 
> If the aim is to reach 90 per cent, getting to 3.5 per cent requires some 75 per cent of the work, and once 20 per cent is attained, nine-tenths of the job is done.
> 
> For this reason, when in February 2010 Iran began enriching to 20 per cent alarm bells rang. This dramatically shortens the time needed – in theory – to produce a bomb's worth of weapons-grade uranium.
> 
> Iran could, in theory, produce weapons-grade uranium from its stockpile of uranium enriched to five per cent using its existing enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo."
> 
> Iran nuclear talks what you need to know about uranium enrichment - Telegraph
Click to expand...


Fair enough.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.



Why do either?  Still waiting..


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Judicial review said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do either?  Still waiting..
Click to expand...


Pressure.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do either?  Still waiting..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure.
Click to expand...


From who?


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Judicial review said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do either?  Still waiting..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From who?
Click to expand...


Not from anyone.

Its to put pressure on us, Israel, and the rest of the club.

Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.



In what way may I ask? I unwittingly addressed that question in the intelligence report I linked to earlier. They already have the means, all they need is the payload in place of a conventional warhead. They have all sorts of missiles capable of reaching Israel, I do believe.

Those include

The Soumar Surface to Surface missile (range of 1,500 miles), which they just revealed YESTERDAY, plus the Qadr and Qiyah LRBMs (Long Range Ballistic Missiles) that are capable of hitting the US, over 9,850 miles away (provided that New York is the target).


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.



Which screams "I want to be in the club and I don't know the secret password!"


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do either?  Still waiting..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not from anyone.
> 
> Its to put pressure on us, Israel, and the rest of the club.
> 
> Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.
Click to expand...


You know if you said Iran was doing it out of fear of being nuked youd actually have a point to troll on, but dude, you are leaving yourself vulnarable by a genius like me to simply hit you with common sense bro. However, what you said was horribly dumb. You are saying they WANT to be nuked.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In what way may I ask? I unwittingly addressed that question in the intelligence report I linked to earlier.
Click to expand...


1. Design and build an implosion trigger. Not easy to do.
2. Test that implosion trigger. Not easy to hide.
3. Build the bomb itself - combine the trigger and the uranium payload.
4. Test the bomb. Impossible to hide.
5. Build a delivery system. Impossible to hide.
6. Test the delivery system. Impossible to hide.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Judicial review said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enriching the uranium isn't the same as building a weapon, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do either?  Still waiting..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pressure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not from anyone.
> 
> Its to put pressure on us, Israel, and the rest of the club.
> 
> Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know if you said Iran was doing it out of fear of being nuked youd actually have a point to troll on, but dude, you are leaving yourself vulnarable by a genius like me to simply hit you with common sense bro. However, what you said was horribly dumb. You are saying they WANT to be nuked.
Click to expand...


No, they _really_ don't want to get nuked.

There's only one way to absolutely guarantee that it will never happen, and a lot of ways to avoid it happening. Iran has a number of routes it can take from here.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> 4. Test the bomb. Impossible to hide.
> 5. Build a delivery system. Impossible to hide.
> 6. Test the delivery system. Impossible to hide.



Given that they've already seen what implosion type bombs can do from historical precedent, there isn't much need for a test. And like I said earlier, they already have missiles with sufficient delivery capabilities.



theDoctorisIn said:


> 1. Design and build an implosion trigger. Not easy to do.
> 2. Test that implosion trigger. Not easy to hide.
> 3. Build the bomb itself - combine the trigger and the uranium payload.



You really must think Iran is full of idiots. Wrong. I wouldn't necessarily undersell their ability to do these things without anyone noticing (as in ways that wont draw anyone's attention).


----------



## TemplarKormac

I'll be back later today to talk more. It is bedtime.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Test the bomb. Impossible to hide.
> 5. Build a delivery system. Impossible to hide.
> 6. Test the delivery system. Impossible to hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given that they've already seen what implosion type bombs can do from historical precedent, there isn't much need for a test. And like I said earlier, they already have missiles with sufficient delivery capabilities.
Click to expand...


They're not working from the blueprints of Little Boy - they've got to design it themselves. If they don't test it, they don't know if it works. That's why a lot of people aren't sure that North Korea has a functioning bomb - we've detected that their tests have been fizzles - the bombs didn't go off during the tests.

And you're incorrect. They do not currently have any missiles with sufficient delivery capabilities. They can build one, but they have not.



TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Design and build an implosion trigger. Not easy to do.
> 2. Test that implosion trigger. Not easy to hide.
> 3. Build the bomb itself - combine the trigger and the uranium payload.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must really think Iran is full of unintelligent people, don't you? I wouldn't necessarily undersell their ability to do these things.
Click to expand...


No, I think that Iran has many brilliant scientists working on it, given enough time I'm sure they'd be capable of doing so. But it will take time, and they won't be able to hide it.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do either?  Still waiting..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not from anyone.
> 
> Its to put pressure on us, Israel, and the rest of the club.
> 
> Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know if you said Iran was doing it out of fear of being nuked youd actually have a point to troll on, but dude, you are leaving yourself vulnarable by a genius like me to simply hit you with common sense bro. However, what you said was horribly dumb. You are saying they WANT to be nuked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they _really_ don't want to get nuked.
> 
> There's only one way to absolutely guarantee that it will never happen, and a lot of ways to avoid it happening. Iran has a number of routes it can take from here.
Click to expand...


Knowing Israel will use heavy explosives and possibly a nuclear isolate explosion to wipe out Irans nuclear capabilities should they get a bomb or simply come close why go further with it and not stop? You say it's because they DON'T want to be nuked.  There only real threat for that is Israel which has said they won't allow it to happen. 

You are full of shit. Just be honest, bro.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Judicial review said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From who?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not from anyone.
> 
> Its to put pressure on us, Israel, and the rest of the club.
> 
> Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know if you said Iran was doing it out of fear of being nuked youd actually have a point to troll on, but dude, you are leaving yourself vulnarable by a genius like me to simply hit you with common sense bro. However, what you said was horribly dumb. You are saying they WANT to be nuked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they _really_ don't want to get nuked.
> 
> There's only one way to absolutely guarantee that it will never happen, and a lot of ways to avoid it happening. Iran has a number of routes it can take from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing Israel will use heavy explosives and possibly a nuclear isolate explosion to wipe out Irans nuclear capabilities should they get a bomb or simply come close why go further with it and not stop? You say it's because they DON'T want to be nuked.  There only real threat for that is Israel which has said they won't allow it to happen.
> 
> You are full of shit. Just be honest, bro.
Click to expand...


Who said anything about them "going further"?

They're at the perfect bargaining position right now.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> From who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not from anyone.
> 
> Its to put pressure on us, Israel, and the rest of the club.
> 
> Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know if you said Iran was doing it out of fear of being nuked youd actually have a point to troll on, but dude, you are leaving yourself vulnarable by a genius like me to simply hit you with common sense bro. However, what you said was horribly dumb. You are saying they WANT to be nuked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they _really_ don't want to get nuked.
> 
> There's only one way to absolutely guarantee that it will never happen, and a lot of ways to avoid it happening. Iran has a number of routes it can take from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing Israel will use heavy explosives and possibly a nuclear isolate explosion to wipe out Irans nuclear capabilities should they get a bomb or simply come close why go further with it and not stop? You say it's because they DON'T want to be nuked.  There only real threat for that is Israel which has said they won't allow it to happen.
> 
> You are full of shit. Just be honest, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about them "going further"?
> 
> They're at the perfect bargaining position right now.
Click to expand...


So they are going to get rid of all of their equipment and all uranium for a big deal where everybody over their gets rid of their nukes? You think Obama is smart enough and influential enough to pull that off? 

You are officially off the reservation, bro. Just give in. I know it's not in libs nature, but you look really bad now, bro.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

Judicial review said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not from anyone.
> 
> Its to put pressure on us, Israel, and the rest of the club.
> 
> Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know if you said Iran was doing it out of fear of being nuked youd actually have a point to troll on, but dude, you are leaving yourself vulnarable by a genius like me to simply hit you with common sense bro. However, what you said was horribly dumb. You are saying they WANT to be nuked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they _really_ don't want to get nuked.
> 
> There's only one way to absolutely guarantee that it will never happen, and a lot of ways to avoid it happening. Iran has a number of routes it can take from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing Israel will use heavy explosives and possibly a nuclear isolate explosion to wipe out Irans nuclear capabilities should they get a bomb or simply come close why go further with it and not stop? You say it's because they DON'T want to be nuked.  There only real threat for that is Israel which has said they won't allow it to happen.
> 
> You are full of shit. Just be honest, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about them "going further"?
> 
> They're at the perfect bargaining position right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they are going to get rid of all of their equipment and all uranium for a big deal where everybody over their gets rid of their nukes? You think Obama is smart enough and influential enough to pull that off?
> 
> You are officially off the reservation, bro. Just give in. I know it's not in libs nature, but you look really bad now, bro.
Click to expand...




The CIA and Mossad agree with me.


----------



## TemplarKormac

theDoctorisIn said:


> And you're incorrect. They do not currently have any missiles with sufficient delivery capabilities. They can build one, but they have not.






TemplarKormac said:


> In what way may I ask? I unwittingly addressed that question in the intelligence report I linked to earlier. They already have the means, all they need is the payload in place of a conventional warhead. They have all sorts of missiles capable of reaching Israel, I do believe.
> 
> Those include
> 
> The Soumar Surface to Surface missile (range of 1,500 miles), which they just revealed YESTERDAY, plus the Qadr and Qiyah LRBMs (Long Range Ballistic Missiles) that are capable of hitting the US, over 9,850 miles away (provided that New York is the target).


----------



## theDoctorisIn

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're incorrect. They do not currently have any missiles with sufficient delivery capabilities. They can build one, but they have not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> In what way may I ask? I unwittingly addressed that question in the intelligence report I linked to earlier. They already have the means, all they need is the payload in place of a conventional warhead. They have all sorts of missiles capable of reaching Israel, I do believe.
> 
> Those include
> 
> The Soumar Surface to Surface missile (range of 1,500 miles), which they just revealed YESTERDAY, plus the Qadr and Qiyah LRBMs (Long Range Ballistic Missiles) that are capable of hitting the US, over 9,850 miles away (provided that New York is the target).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


It's not as simple as just swapping one warhead for another. Atomic warheads are many times heavier than conventional warheads.

Ballistic missiles, particularly long-range ones, are essentially rockets. They have to leave the atmosphere. The weight of the payload is a pretty big deal. Iran would need to partially rebuild their rockets for them to carry an atomic payload.


----------



## idb

Ernie S. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....
> 
> The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.
> 
> Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No sir! The intended message is in 2 years you will face a POTUS with a set of balls.
> 
> obama cost us our last shred of respect in this world.
> Iranians were laughing their asses off until 47 patriots warned them that the US won't always be a paper tiger.
Click to expand...

I saw an Iranian politician brilliantly and sophisticatedly take the piss out of 47 boorish US Congressmen.
They probably still don't understand what happened.

In another week they'll be having a quiet moment then one of them will suddenly go..."Haaanng on...what did he say?!"
That is why the world is laughing at the US.


----------



## Judicial review

theDoctorisIn said:


> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Judicial review said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know if you said Iran was doing it out of fear of being nuked youd actually have a point to troll on, but dude, you are leaving yourself vulnarable by a genius like me to simply hit you with common sense bro. However, what you said was horribly dumb. You are saying they WANT to be nuked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, they _really_ don't want to get nuked.
> 
> There's only one way to absolutely guarantee that it will never happen, and a lot of ways to avoid it happening. Iran has a number of routes it can take from here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Knowing Israel will use heavy explosives and possibly a nuclear isolate explosion to wipe out Irans nuclear capabilities should they get a bomb or simply come close why go further with it and not stop? You say it's because they DON'T want to be nuked.  There only real threat for that is Israel which has said they won't allow it to happen.
> 
> You are full of shit. Just be honest, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said anything about them "going further"?
> 
> They're at the perfect bargaining position right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they are going to get rid of all of their equipment and all uranium for a big deal where everybody over their gets rid of their nukes? You think Obama is smart enough and influential enough to pull that off?
> 
> You are officially off the reservation, bro. Just give in. I know it's not in libs nature, but you look really bad now, bro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA and Mossad agree with me.
Click to expand...


I thought you mods were supposed to be the smart ones here on usmb. Wow, was I wrong. The big whopper is how liberal you all are. Explains everything.


----------



## EatMorChikin

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.



If it's so god damned important, why is it being spearheaded by Kerry and Obammy?


----------



## EatMorChikin

JakeStarkey said:


> Russia will support Iran, yes, but that does not mean we need to go to war with Iran to keep them from getting nukes.  The sanctions are never going to be let up much if they don't back down verifiably.  The people will overthrow the Ayatollahs if the sanctions stay in place.  The Iranian leadership knows that.



The sanctions were already let up, and they were given our money to just be nice. This is the kind of blithering idiots we have in the white house.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> Hmmm, ain't that interesting...



Cotton was married in March, 2014, in a hush-hush wedding because the GOP wanted him to be married before running against Pryor in November. No announcement was made before the wedding.

Cotton has been spotted in more than one gay establishment in DC and environs and the rumor mill (including possible very, very compromising videos) is just working this one overtime.

My 6th sense tells me that Sen. Cotton is the next Larry Craig in the making. I bet that the Tea Party is in for a real shock, a real disappointment, when this whole thing blows up.

Poor Mrs. Cotton.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Wry Catcher said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....
> 
> The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.
> 
> Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> excellent point!  Country First was always a slogan, one they dropped along with the Big Tent liel  Today's Republican Party is beginning to look like the Democratic Party in the first five decades of the 19th Century.
Click to expand...



*YEPP.*


----------



## EatMorChikin

BULLDOG said:


> NLT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on  them for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?
Click to expand...


Oh how cute, another idiot tosses the race card. The race card is bankrupt, and is now useless.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Shrimpbox said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw
> 
> Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you didn't see the post above the one you quoted. I know exactly what an EA is. It is legal to a point. Reid v Covert covers that.
> 
> Reid v. Covert 354 U.S. 1 1956 Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm just wondering why - suddenly - Republicans are having a hissy fit over something routinely done by presidents.
> 
> I think I know why...because, even with their limitations, they do carry the weight of law internationally and once in place, they are very difficult to dismantle.  The Republicans are trying to scuttle it because they won't have much effect on it afterwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coyote do you understand what you just said. Obama can unilaterally create international law that this country is bound by and the congress has no say in it. If such is true, and I don't believe it is, then you have just made the republican case. And remember, the only way Obama is able to pass big ticket items is to lie to the American people(see obamacare ) and keep details of a settlement secret until after it is passed(see FCC decision). Sound familiar.
> 
> But the floats in the repub stupid parade just keep on passing by. The lunatics are running the asylum. Let's see if i got this right. With two weeks to the treaty deadline, a deadline that would not have been met, repubs just gave Obama the perfect out. I could have had peace if it hadn't been for those warmongering republicans. The focus will be on stupid republicans and not an inept Obama. You can't even make this stuff up. Which Mensa republicans came up with this strategy gem. They couldn't have just waited and then sent a letter. And let's pile on after the Boehner invite to bibi undercutting the presidents negotiating stance by letting only the republican senators, not a bipartisan group,peacock strut in front of the mullahs to confirm their impotence and total lack of class. Democrats don't even have to worry about talking points, the republicans write em for them.
> 
> You know this can't get any worse and so I am offering myself up for free for 90 days as a pr/strategic consultant. Once I have turned around the republicans in Congress I will be available for the campaign. Suicide is not painless.
Click to expand...

Brilliant posting. I am travelling right now so texting a lot with Tapatalk is a  pita. ...

But essentially I think you are saying:

1. The current GOP crop sucks at strategema. 

2. Opposition just for the sake of opposition is no strategy. It has backfired on the GOP more than once.

More later. ..m

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ernie S. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....
> 
> The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.
> 
> Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No sir! The intended message is in 2 years you will face a POTUS with a set of balls.
> 
> obama cost us our last shred of respect in this world.
> Iranians were laughing their asses off until 47 patriots warned them that the US won't always be a paper tiger.
Click to expand...

Hillary has balls? !?!?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## JoeB131

Jarhead said:


> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.



We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.  

Okay, the problem with this letter is that really, it invalidates ALL treaties.  If you say, "Hey, this treaty is no good whent hat guy leaves,", what's the point of signing a treaty? 

The problem is, Russia, China, Europe aren't going to keep not trading with Iran forever if we say so if the Iranians come to the table in good faith and we don't keep our own word.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

* Bernie Sanders Explains How 47 Treasonous GOP Senators Tried To Sabotage World Peace *

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) explained that the treasonous behavior of the forty-seven Iran letter senators is a danger to world peace. …


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.




Your great hero Scott Walker has refused to negotiate with labor on accounts he thinks organized labor is the same as terrorist ISIS


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> * Bernie Sanders Explains How 47 Treasonous GOP Senators Tried To Sabotage World Peace *
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) explained that the treasonous behavior of the forty-seven Iran letter senators is a danger to world peace. …



Uh, let's not hyperventilate, xxxxxxxx. 

While this is really, really bad form, it's not like anyone really expects there to be a treaty that will mean anything or can get ratified in Congress.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your great hero Scott Walker has refused to negotiate with labor on accounts he thinks organized labor is the same as terrorist ISIS
Click to expand...


Yeah, well, when Labor threatened to "Gut his wife like a deer", maybe he had good reason for thinking that. 

Threat to Scott Walker s wife gut her like a deer - Blaska s Bring It - November 2013


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Bernie Sanders Explains How 47 Treasonous GOP Senators Tried To Sabotage World Peace *
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) explained that the treasonous behavior of the forty-seven Iran letter senators is a danger to world peace. …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, let's not hyperventilate, DropSoap.
> 
> While this is really, really bad form, it's not like anyone really expects there to be a treaty that will mean anything or can get ratified in Congress.
Click to expand...

sure gaybait you are a right wing regular bastard pretending to be a normal person...you are strictly a wing nut...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your great hero Scott Walker has refused to negotiate with labor on accounts he thinks organized labor is the same as terrorist ISIS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, when Labor threatened to "Gut his wife like a deer", maybe he had good reason for thinking that.
> 
> Threat to Scott Walker s wife gut her like a deer - Blaska s Bring It - November 2013
Click to expand...


----------



## Edgetho

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your great hero Scott Walker has refused to negotiate with labor on accounts he thinks organized labor is the same as terrorist ISIS
Click to expand...



They are


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Edgetho said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your great hero Scott Walker has refused to negotiate with labor on accounts he thinks organized labor is the same as terrorist ISIS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Walker said in a statement:
Republican Presidential Hopefuls Scramble To Support Seditious Iran Letter

Republicans need to ensure that any deal President Obama reaches with Iran receives congressional review. Unless the White House is prepared to submit the Iran deal it negotiates for congressional approval, the next president should not be bound by it. I will continue to express that concern publicly to the President and directly to the American people.

*Petition seeking treason charges for Iran letter hits 100,000 signatures*
5 hrs ago - Backlash continued to mount Tuesday after 47 GOP senators sent to a letter to Iran’s leaders on Monday warning any nuclear deal wouldn’t be valid without congressional approval. Not only was a White House petition started urging charges be filed aga ... (Tampa Sun Times)


----------



## Seawytch

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your great hero Scott Walker has refused to negotiate with labor on accounts he thinks organized labor is the same as terrorist ISIS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, when Labor threatened to "Gut his wife like a deer", maybe he had good reason for thinking that.
> 
> Threat to Scott Walker s wife gut her like a deer - Blaska s Bring It - November 2013
Click to expand...


Really? That was an actual official statement from a union representative or are you painting all labor unions with the actions of one individual, Joe?


----------



## BlackSand

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Walker said in a statement:
> Republican Presidential Hopefuls Scramble To Support Seditious Iran Letter
> 
> Republicans need to ensure that any deal President Obama reaches with Iran receives congressional review. Unless the White House is prepared to submit the Iran deal it negotiates for congressional approval, the next president should not be bound by it. I will continue to express that concern publicly to the President and directly to the American people.
> 
> *Petition seeking treason charges for Iran letter hits 100,000 signatures*
> 5 hrs ago - Backlash continued to mount Tuesday after 47 GOP senators sent to a letter to Iran’s leaders on Monday warning any nuclear deal wouldn’t be valid without congressional approval. Not only was a White House petition started urging charges be filed aga ... (Tampa Sun Times)



Yeah, it is pretty good idea to bring the thread back online with the mission ... Kudos.
The good doctor explaining how Iran doesn't want to, and is probably incapable of building a bomb ... So they can pressure the US and Israel by joining the nuclear club was starting to crack me up.

.


----------



## Judicial review

BlackSand said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Walker said in a statement:
> Republican Presidential Hopefuls Scramble To Support Seditious Iran Letter
> 
> Republicans need to ensure that any deal President Obama reaches with Iran receives congressional review. Unless the White House is prepared to submit the Iran deal it negotiates for congressional approval, the next president should not be bound by it. I will continue to express that concern publicly to the President and directly to the American people.
> 
> *Petition seeking treason charges for Iran letter hits 100,000 signatures*
> 5 hrs ago - Backlash continued to mount Tuesday after 47 GOP senators sent to a letter to Iran’s leaders on Monday warning any nuclear deal wouldn’t be valid without congressional approval. Not only was a White House petition started urging charges be filed aga ... (Tampa Sun Times)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, it is pretty good idea to bring the thread back online with the mission ... Kudos.
> The good doctor explaining how Iran doesn't want to, and is probably incapable of building a bomb ... So they can pressure the US and Israel by joining the nuclear club was starting to crack me up.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I couldn't tell if he was serious.  theDoctorisIn


----------



## Dot Com




----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


>


Fantastic!  Says it all. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


Lol!!!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Uncensored2008

asterism said:


> Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California traveled to Iraq in 2002 to support Saddam Hussein and oppose the President.  Later it was uncovered that the Iraqi government paid for the trip (which they deny *wink wink).
> 
> US Saddam paid for lawmakers Iraq trip - USATODAY.com



democrats are traitors.

Always.


----------



## Uncensored2008

cnm said:


> Please.
> 
> You negotiate with some and fund others.



If we don't fund the terrorists, you scream about "Government Shutdown!"


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> looks like the right is circling the fear wagons!



Oh, is that what it looks like?

Laughing and pointing at you morons is "circling the wagons."


----------



## Uncensored2008

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.



I think their anger is over Obama giving aid and comfort to a nation dedicated to the destruction of the United States.

The Senate loves America, Obama loves Iran.


----------



## nat4900

Jarhead said:


> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.


 

You do realize (well, maybe you don't) that one person's "terrorism" is another person's "freedom fight"?.......After all, were the resistance fighters in WWII terrorists? Were our founding fathers also terrorists against the Brits?


----------



## nat4900

QST: Does anyone else think that Tom Cotton's letter was actually written by Israel's Bibi?....after all, the letter supports Israeli's interests a heck of a lot more than our own.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> You do realize (well, maybe you don't) that one person's "terrorism" is another person's "freedom fight"?.......After all, were the resistance fighters in WWII terrorists? Were our founding fathers also terrorists against the Brits?



This is your "freedom?"





You democrats are utter scum.


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> QST: Does anyone else think that Tom Cotton's letter was actually written by Israel's Bibi?....after all, the letter supports Israeli's interests a heck of a lot more than our own.



Are you Iranian?

Cotton's letter supports America's interests - which conflict with the interests of Iran, radical Islam, and their little dog Obama.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize (well, maybe you don't) that one person's "terrorism" is another person's "freedom fight"?.......After all, were the resistance fighters in WWII terrorists? Were our founding fathers also terrorists against the Brits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your "freedom?"
> 
> 
> You democrats are utter scum.
Click to expand...

This is your freedom...





This is your Democracy ...any questions


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Are these guys aware that they are dealing with a bunch dangerous, fanatical zealots who would happily watch America burn to the ground just because it dares to stand against their twisted ideology?

I mean seriously, someone should warn the Iranians that these Republican senators are crazy.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Uncensored2008 said:


> Cotton's letter supports America's interests - which conflict with the interests of Iran, radical Islam, and their little dog Obama.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize (well, maybe you don't) that one person's "terrorism" is another person's "freedom fight"?.......After all, were the resistance fighters in WWII terrorists? Were our founding fathers also terrorists against the Brits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your "freedom?"
> 
> 
> You democrats are utter scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is your freedom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your Democracy ...any questions
Click to expand...


The Khmer Rouge was "democracy?"

Hey, you might be a filthy liar, but at least you're stupid as a dog turd.


----------



## Uncensored2008

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Are these guys aware that they are dealing with a bunch dangerous, fanatical zealots who would happily watch America burn to the ground just because it dares to stand against their twisted ideology?



Yes, they know they are dealing with Obama and the democrats.



> I mean seriously, someone should warn the Iranians that these Republican senators are crazy.



Do you ever regret sticking the ice pick in your eye socket to it's hilt and vigorously rotating?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Neotrotsky said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gang of 47 aren't 'traitors,' they're cowards, fools, and partisan hacks – their letter amounts to a childish temper-tantrum because the president won reelection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, they create their own problem-- before the war FDR was a fan of Mussolini
> Once people saw the horrors of socialist movements after the war, the left ran hard to redefine themselves, again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I love it when fascists go on this weird bent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed from the 'right wing" Dailykos...
> 
> FDR s Endorsement of Benito Mussolini Is Stunningly Tone Deaf and Troubling
> 
> 
> _            Earlier last century, President Franklin Roosevelt endorsed Italian dictator Benito Mussolini as an admirable Italian gentleman.
> 
> He also said, in a letter to an American envoy, of all people, that I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished._
> 
> 
> 
> truth is hard for the left, in fact it is their worst enemy
Click to expand...


Character assassination is easy for the right, concern for truth too high a hurdle.

Daniel Webster is known for this comment, one which may be to difficult for a conservative - locked in an intellectual box - to understand.  Thus for others, consider his sage words:

*"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."*
*
The date of the quote attrituted to FDR would be telling, honesty requires it be presented for it to have any relevance.  Those who understand history, and the era of the Great Depression in particular, understand the significance of the date.*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*EXCLUSIVE Emergency Committee for Israel Spends Big on Rep. Cotton LobeLog*

The people who helped lay the groundwork for the war in Iraq have a favorite candidate for today’s midterm election, and that candidate is Rep. Tom Cotton (R) from Arkansas’ 4th congressional district, who is challenging Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) for his Senate seat.

According to newly released FEC filings, Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month from the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), a right-wing group headed by the neoconservative pundit, Bill Kristol, who infamously predicted that the Iraq war would last two months. At its inception, the ECI was based out of the same Washington office as the Committee of the Liberation of Iraq, a pressure group that lobbied for the 2003 invasion.


----------



## JakeStarkey

EatMorChikin said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia will support Iran, yes, but that does not mean we need to go to war with Iran to keep them from getting nukes.  The sanctions are never going to be let up much if they don't back down verifiably.  The people will overthrow the Ayatollahs if the sanctions stay in place.  The Iranian leadership knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sanctions were already let up, and they were given our money to just be nice. This is the kind of blithering idiots we have in the white house.
Click to expand...

That does not make any sense.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

It appears to me that the treasonous letter sent by 47 recalcitrant Senators was part of a two pronged attempt to derail the Policy course decided by our Democratically elected President Obama.

The other prong of this classic "Hammer and Tong" operation was the invitation [without notification of the POTUS] to Netanyahu to come the Congress and sandbag the President...Unnnbelievable treachery ....NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON >>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> Character assassination is easy for the right, concern for truth too high a hurdle.



Rich irony.

What OTHER than demagoguery do you democrats offer then nation? In fact, the name of your filthy party should rightfully be changed to the "demagogue party."



> Daniel Webster is known for this comment, one which may be to difficult for a conservative - locked in an intellectual box - to understand.  Thus for others, consider his sage words:
> 
> *"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."
> 
> The date of the quote attrituted to FDR would be telling, honesty requires it be presented for it to have any relevance.  Those who understand history, and the era of the Great Depression in particular, understand the significance of the date.*



I'm not sure your point, but perhaps your efforts would be better spent removing the beam from the eye of your own party, rather than obsessing on the mote in the eye of your hated enemy...


----------



## Uncensored2008

TyroneSlothrop said:


> It appears to me that the treasonous letter sent by 47 recalcitrant Senators was part of a two pronged attempt to derail the Policy course decided by our Democratically elected President Obama.
> 
> The other prong of this classic "Hammer and Thong" operation was the invitation [without notification of the POTUS] to Netanyahu to come the Congress and sandbag the President...Unnnbelievable treachery ....NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON >>>>>>>>>>>



It appears to me that you are a drooling fucking retard.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people."
> 
> -James Wilson of Pennsylvania, delegate and signatory to the United States Constitution
> 
> In that respect, this treaty, with the terms as they are, would not only endanger Israel, it could necessarily threaten that of the world and ultimately the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Executive agreements are madehttp://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/annotation12.html: Annotation 12 - Article II - FindLaw
> 
> Suddenly, Congress is having a hissy fit.
> 
> There is no indication yet that it would endanger israel or threaten the world or the US.
> 
> However - being forced into a military conflict most certainly would threaten us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So ya don't feel that promoting the means of nations vehemently hostile to JEWS... acquiring Nuclear weapons, is indicative of a threat to THE JEWISH NATION?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> What you're seeing there is what is OKA: _*THE PROBLEM!*_
Click to expand...


The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end, only neo cons and fools want to escalate an already tense situation into a violent one.

Assholes like keys have no solutions, no ideas and thus no credibility.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Edgetho said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your great hero Scott Walker has refused to negotiate with labor on accounts he thinks organized labor is the same as terrorist ISIS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They are
Click to expand...

That kind of gastric penguin mouth far belching helps the Dems, does not hurt them in the slightest.  It reveals your thinking as silly and immature.


----------



## Lakhota

Tom Cotton is a dangerous dude - maybe even psycho.

Cotton strongly advocates higher defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy. As _The New Republic’s_ David Ramsey noted, “Pick a topic — Syria, Iran, Russia, ISIS, drones, NSA snooping — and Cotton can be found at the hawkish outer edge of the debate…*During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.'”*

More: Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal, Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Uncensored2008 said:


> It appears to me that you are a drooling fucking retard.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Character assassination is easy for the right, concern for truth too high a hurdle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rich irony.
> 
> What OTHER than demagoguery do you democrats offer then nation? In fact, the name of your filthy party should rightfully be changed to the "demagogue party."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Webster is known for this comment, one which may be to difficult for a conservative - locked in an intellectual box - to understand.  Thus for others, consider his sage words:
> 
> *"Inconsistencies of opinion, arising from changes of circumstances, are often justifiable."
> 
> The date of the quote attrituted to FDR would be telling, honesty requires it be presented for it to have any relevance.  Those who understand history, and the era of the Great Depression in particular, understand the significance of the date.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure your point, but perhaps your efforts would be better spent removing the beam from the eye of your own party, rather than obsessing on the mote in the eye of your hated enemy...
Click to expand...


You're not sure of my point?  One needs to be pretty dumb not to recognize the obvious.  And only a hypocrite and a partisan hack would characterize one party and not both of engagement in demagoguery.  

The test is watch the feet not the lips of all pols, it's not what they say, it's what they have done and what they do that matters.  Another concept the dumb cannot grasp.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Cotton is a neo-con.  Nothing more be said.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end, only neo cons and fools want to escalate an already tense situation into a violent one.
> 
> Assholes like keys have no solutions, no ideas and thus no credibility.



And this is the crux of the issue, isn't it? The demagogue party has been drifting even more Antisemitic since the 80's, but under Obama has adopted an open hatred for Jews. This IS the current clash, Obama supports an enemy of America due to his hatred of Jews. The demagogue rank and file march in lockstep behind him chanting slogans left over from the Third Reich.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Lakhota said:


> Tom Cotton is a dangerous dude - maybe even psycho.
> 
> More: Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal, Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept






*Tom Cotton told uninsured voter not to use Obamacare because 'Russian mobsters' would steal her identity*


----------



## JakeStarkey

Uncensored is unhinged.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> QST: Does anyone else think that Tom Cotton's letter was actually written by Israel's Bibi?....after all, the letter supports Israeli's interests a heck of a lot more than our own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you Iranian?
> 
> Cotton's letter supports America's interests - which conflict with the interests of Iran, radical Islam, and their little dog Obama.
Click to expand...

It's so fun to watch rwnj frothers frothe. ...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> You're not sure of my point?  One needs to be pretty dumb not to recognize the obvious.  And only a hypocrite would characterize one party and not both of engagement in demagoguery



Once again, the Republicans are like a bad case of genital herpes. Certainly nothing to recommend them. But the democrats (demagogues) are full blown AIDS. Neither is good, but one if FAR worse than the other.

You look at the American demagogue party under Obama, these are NOT good people, they do not seek the best for the nation or it's inhabitants.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Statistikhengst said:


> It's so fun to watch rwnj frothers frothe. ...
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk



I thought you were hiding in fear from me, Statist?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Lakhota said:


> Tom Cotton is a dangerous dude - maybe even psycho.



Of course Shitting Bull. This is a man who openly supported the ally of the United States against the enemy of the USA.  You demagogues only support those who oppose America.



> Cotton strongly advocates higher defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy. As _The New Republic’s_ David Ramsey noted, “Pick a topic — Syria, Iran, Russia, ISIS, drones, NSA snooping — and Cotton can be found at the hawkish outer edge of the debate…*During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.'”*
> 
> More: Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal, Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept



Omagahd... you must be pissing yourself... He opposes Mexican drug cartels - the fiend...

Shitting Bull, you are one STUPID motherfucker.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Uncensored2008 said:


> under Obama has adopted an open hatred for Jews. This IS the current clash, Obama supports an enemy of America due to his hatred of Jews. The demagogue rank and file march in lockstep behind him


*Ex-US Senator Calls Out Missouri GOP Leader During Funeral Words Can Kill *






AP Photo / Jeff Roberson
ByCatherine Thompson  

Published March 3, 2015, 1:07 PM EST  34487 views
           



Eulogies are a celebration of the life of the deceased. But in his remembrance of Missouri Auditor Tom Schweich (R) on Tuesday, former U.S. Sen. John Danforth (R-MO) combined high praise for the dead with forcefully harsh words for the state GOP chairman who has been linked to Schweich's suicide.

Speaking at the funeral in Clayton, Mo., for Schweich, who had been a leading Republican gubernatorial candidate until his suicide last week, Danforth addressed head-on an* alleged anti-Semitic "whisper campaign"* that preceded the death.

In the days leading up to his suicide on Thursday, Schweich told those close to him that state* GOP chairman John Hancock *had been off-handedly telling people he was Jewish even though he attended an Episcopal church.

*"Tom called this anti-Semitism, and of course it was," Danforth *said during the eulogy on Tuesday, as quoted by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "The only reason for going around saying that someone is Jewish is to make political profit from religious bigotry."


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
Click to expand...


You fear monger well, now, how about a rational dialogue on how to reduce tension and work toward a win-win solution - Obama's goal?  Your's and the neo cons seem intent on playing a zero sum game.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Cotton is a dangerous dude - maybe even psycho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course Shitting Bull. This is a man who openly supported the ally of the United States against the enemy of the USA.  You demagogues only support those who oppose America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cotton strongly advocates higher defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy. As _The New Republic’s_ David Ramsey noted, “Pick a topic — Syria, Iran, Russia, ISIS, drones, NSA snooping — and Cotton can be found at the hawkish outer edge of the debate…*During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.'”*
> 
> More: Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal, Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Omagahd... you must be pissing yourself... He opposes Mexican drug cartels - the fiend...
> 
> Shitting Bull, you are one STUPID motherfucker.
Click to expand...


I suggest you buy a dictionary, or, look up demagogue on line.  It seems your ignorance far exceeds realpolitik and intrudes into your understanding of the meaning of words.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Israel's interests don't trump the rest of the worlds - particularly since Israel is a nuclear power that has refused to sign the NPT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, but when Iran threatens to wipe you from the face of the Earth, it won't matter who has second strike capability and who doesn't. One nuke ends Israel forever. It won't matter who signed the NPT. Israel will get the blunt end of this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is not suicidal - they're not going to "nuke Israel", and even if they did, "one nuke" won't come close to _ending Israel forever_.
> 
> Israel has second-strike capability, both from ground silos and from submarines. A nuclear attack on Israel would guarantee an automatic nuclear response against Iran.
> 
> Israel's nukes are modern thermonuclear fusion bombs - "H-bombs" - which are magnitudes more powerful than anything Iran is close to building. Not to mention the other 3 nuclear powers within 200 miles of Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If a country behaves in a rational manner,,, your argument might work
> Iran, or least it leaders are far from stable and trustworthy.
> If a theocracy has a belief that suicidal acts can get one into heaven,
> it seems a hard sell to believe they are not at least a bit irrational.
> 
> 
> Besides, a nuclear bomb capability is the required "trigger" for a H bomb
> so, yeah it is a big thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is one of the oldest civilizations on the planet.
> 
> They haven't lasted 6,000 years being irrational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Problem.  Iran isn't limited to its geographical borders. It holds influence over multiple countries in the ME.
Click to expand...


Well, don't stop there.  Post the political map of the ME, and show us Irans friends and foes.  You do know that Iranians are not Arabs, I hope, and most are Shiite, and most Arabs are Sunni.


----------



## Wry Catcher

1stRambo said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1stRambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yo, how quickly we forget? Just a few days back the "Socialist Progressive Democrats" showed their true colors as traitors! They boycotted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech, our only ally in the middle east? Now who is the real Hypocrite in Washington?
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> "OBAMA AND HIS PUPPETS HATE AMERICA"
> View attachment 37678
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Umh...what does boycotting a speech have to do with anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo, use that tiny brain if possible?
> 
> "GTP"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: I can't come up with a coherent response so I'll just fling some monkey poo
> 
> So folks are now "traiters" if they boycott a foriegn national's speech?  Will wonders never cease...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yo, Traitors? If you can`t see it? Then maybe night school might help you, main subject needed: History!
> 
> "GTP"
Click to expand...


Welcome, whatever forum banned you accomplished one thing, the average IQ of their forum rose, and ours declined.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> I suggest you buy a dictionary, or, look up demagogue on line.  It seems your ignorance far exceeds realpolitik and intrudes into your understanding of the meaning of words.



*demagogue*


Tweet
_noun_ dem·a·gogue \ˈde-mə-ˌgäg\
: a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason


Shall I hold my breath waiting for your apology?

Nah, that would require character on your part....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*AIR *out the Senate *A*rrest *I*mpeach* R*ecall ...the 47 percent of the Senate [100 % GOP ] that just shat on America ...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

That conservatives would do something as stupid as this letter should surprise no one.


----------



## nat4900

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize (well, maybe you don't) that one person's "terrorism" is another person's "freedom fight"?.......After all, were the resistance fighters in WWII terrorists? Were our founding fathers also terrorists against the Brits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your "freedom?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You democrats are utter scum.
Click to expand...

 

Well, if you had a half-a-brain you'd tilt to that side....You (as most uneducated right wingers) are confusing ISIS (Sunni) bastards with Persians Shia's......Do you realize that Iranians are currently fighting against those very same murderers you show that picture of????


----------



## Uncensored2008

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *AIR *out the Senate *A*rrest *I*mpeach* R*ecall ...the 47 percent of the Senate [100 % GOP ] that just shat on America ...



I strongly encourage you Communists to take up flags demanding "DEATH TO ISRAEL" and "KILL THE JEWS," then march on the Capitol to depose these Senators on behalf of Iran and radical Islam.

Don't wait, seize the moment. Make sure American cannot ignore EXACTLY what you of the demagogue party are. Break lots of windows on your way.


----------



## Statistikhengst

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That conservatives would do something as stupid as this letter should surprise no one.


Yes.  And I bet that, had they had the chance to sign the letter as well, at least 220 GOP HOR  Representatives would have done it. I have never before seen so much looniness in all of my life. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> Well, if you had a half-a-barin you'd tilt to that side....You (as most uneducated right wingers) are confusing ISIS (Sunni) bastards with Persians Shia's......Do you realize that Iranians are currently fighting against those very same murderers you show that picture of????



Izzatrite Goober?

So, what you claim is that Obama IZ TWO GOD cause he make nicey with Iran and Shiites want to create an empire to the Euphrates?

You are a leftist, ergo a fucking retard. You made the moronic claim that "one person's "terrorism" is another person's "freedom fight"." I said nothing of Iran in my reply, you drooling baboon.

Fucking leftists, stupid as dog turds, just not as pleasant.


----------



## nat4900

Uncensored2008 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize (well, maybe you don't) that one person's "terrorism" is another person's "freedom fight"?.......After all, were the resistance fighters in WWII terrorists? Were our founding fathers also terrorists against the Brits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your "freedom?"
> 
> 
> You democrats are utter scum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is your freedom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your Democracy ...any questions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Khmer Rouge was "democracy?"
> 
> Hey, you might be a filthy liar, but at least you're stupid as a dog turd.
Click to expand...

 
In other words, you have NO clue of what I wrote.....I understand given your rabid hatred and very low IQ.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That conservatives would do something as stupid as this letter should surprise no one.


Shocked shocked...


----------



## Uncensored2008

nat4900 said:


> In other words, you have NO clue of what I wrote.....I understand given your rabid hatred and very low IQ.



In direct words, I dismantled your moronic talking points and you are left the babbling fool you have always been,

You are a leftist because you are stupid.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Khmer Rouge was "democracy?"
> 
> Hey, you might be a filthy liar, but at least you're stupid as a dog turd.


Speaking of stupid as a dog turd...one picture was from "freedom" we brought to Iraq...the other from "Democracy" we brought to Vietnam...the Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia ....no pictures of Cambodia were we helped Pol Pot


----------



## Uncensored2008

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Speaking of stupid as a dog turd...one picture was from "freedom" we brought to Iraq...the other from "Democracy" we brought to Vietnam...the Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia ....no pictures of Cambodia were we helped Pol Pot



Looked like the killing fields to me, sploogy.

I think I'll not take your word for it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Uncensored2008 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of stupid as a dog turd...one picture was from "freedom" we brought to Iraq...the other from "Democracy" we brought to Vietnam...the Khmer Rouge were in Cambodia ....no pictures of Cambodia were we helped Pol Pot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looked like the killing fields to me, sploogy.
> 
> I think I'll not take your word for it.
Click to expand...

You are a fucking maroon that was taken at the village of Mi Lai Vietnam ...its a well known photo you are just too ignorant too dense in your stupid.. ...


----------



## Mad Scientist

The Petition won't get anyone arrested but at least now some Liberals will know what the Logan Act actually is.

I'm LOVING all these pissed off Americans talking about  Constitutional issues rather than Tom Brady's balls.


----------



## Uncensored2008




----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> looks like the right is circling the fear wagons!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, is that what it looks like?
> 
> Laughing and pointing at you morons is "circling the wagons."
Click to expand...

just like you to misinterpret reality..


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize (well, maybe you don't) that one person's "terrorism" is another person's "freedom fight"?.......After all, were the resistance fighters in WWII terrorists? Were our founding fathers also terrorists against the Brits?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is your "freedom?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You democrats are utter scum.
Click to expand...

people get murdered every 30 seconds  why is that one  more special ?
cuz it was on tv?


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> just like you to misinterpret reality..



So then, when are you going to have your Kristalnacht and arrest these usurpers of the won?  Sounds to me like all you can do is pout, while we point and laugh at you...


But whatchagfunnado


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> cuz it was on tv?



An American reporter murdered by Islamic terrorists is a tad more important to those who support America than a numbers runner in Tanzania murdered by a rival gang.

I know that whole idea that America matters is something you of the left just can't get behind, but...


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just like you to misinterpret reality..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, when are you going to have your Kristalnacht and arrest these usurpers of the won?  Sounds to me like all you can do is pout, while we point and laugh at you...
> 
> 
> But whatchagfunnado
Click to expand...

 now take your meds .....that's a good boy.....
btw the point and laugh gag has run it's course...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Mad Scientist said:


> The Petition won't get anyone arrested but at least now some Liberals will know what the Logan Act actually is.
> 
> I'm LOVING all these pissed off Americans talking about  Constitutional issues rather than Tom Brady's balls.


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> cuz it was on tv?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An American reporter murdered by Islamic terrorists is a tad more important to those who support America than a numbers runner in Tanzania murdered by a rival gang.
> 
> I know that whole idea that America matters is something you of the left just can't get behind, but...
Click to expand...

he knew the job was dangerous when he took it.
you' are doing a fine job of  proving my first comment correct......thanks!


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> now take your meds .....that's a good boy.....
> btw the point and laugh gag has run it's course...



Funny, it isn't me who is ranting about how you're "going to get those Americans" who humiliated the boiking.

Come on duhs, tell us exactly what you're going to do against elected Senators?

I'll make it multiple choice to make it easy on you:


Pout
Pout
Pout


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Sanders: Iran Letter Shows GOP Senators Just 'Itching for War'*...they want boots on the ground ...


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> he knew the job was dangerous when he took it.
> you' are doing a fine job of  proving my first comment correct......thanks!



Right, mindless relativism is worthy of consideration - sure it is...


----------



## Wry Catcher

theDoctorisIn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran won't be able to build a boosted _uranium_ fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons. It takes _years_ of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, so, you think Iran is limited merely by its own technology? I seriously doubt that. And you forget how long the Iranian nuclear program has been active.
> 
> Alright then, so, Iran has enough nuclear fuel at the moment to make 7 implosion style nuclear warheads (that of which you just described)
> 
> If they launched just 5 and detonated them 4 miles above the surfaces at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, and Ashdod (Israel's 5 largest cities), you would see nearly 300,000 people die at once. It took 9 years for that many to die from the initial explosions, radiation burns and exposure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given how small Israel is, the death toll would be magnified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.
> 
> You're also missing a really big part of the picture. Bombs have to be tested. They don't just spring into being. Implosion triggers have to be designed, and tested. None of those tests will be secret from us, or from Russia, or from China. (Hint: they don't want another member of the club, either).
> 
> There is no conceivable scenario in which Iran could _surprise_ Israel with a bomb.
Click to expand...


I wonder, N Korea is so unstable, and so irrational, might they give Iran the technology and tools to make a crude nuclear bomb, or other less rational groups such as AQ, ISIS, etc.?


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he knew the job was dangerous when he took it.
> you' are doing a fine job of  proving my first comment correct......thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, mindless relativism is worthy of consideration - sure it is...
Click to expand...

everything's a relative...


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> ]everything's a relative...



Reality exists.

A=A


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]everything's a relative...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality exists.
> 
> A=A
Click to expand...

Just not in your wing nut world "Einstein"


----------



## daws101

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]everything's a relative...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality exists.
> 
> A=A
Click to expand...

only relatively...
relative
[ ˈrelətiv ]
http://www.usmessageboard.com/javascript:void(0)
ADJECTIVE
adjective: *relative*

considered in relation or in proportion to something else:
"the relative effectiveness of the various mechanisms is not known"
synonyms: comparative · respective · comparable · correlative · parallel ·
corresponding
More
existing or possessing a specified characteristic only in comparison to something else; not absolute:
"she went down the steps into the relative darkness of the dining room"
synonyms: moderate · reasonable · a fair degree of · considerable ·
comparative
More

grammar
denoting a pronoun, determiner, or adverb that refers to an expressed or implied antecedent and attaches a subordinate clause to it, e.g., which, who.
(of a clause) attached to an antecedent by a relative word.

music
(of major and minor keys) having the same key signature.
(of a service rank) corresponding in grade to another in a different service.
NOUN


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Wry Catcher

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We negotiate with terrorists all the time.  Get real.  Just ask Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your great hero Scott Walker has refused to negotiate with labor on accounts he thinks organized labor is the same as terrorist ISIS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, when Labor threatened to "Gut his wife like a deer", maybe he had good reason for thinking that.
> 
> Threat to Scott Walker s wife gut her like a deer - Blaska s Bring It - November 2013
Click to expand...


"Labor" said, "Gut his wife like a deer"?  Really?  Labor speaks, how odd.  

Post some evidence that a real person made this deplorable comment and we can censor that single person; or don't, and we can presume this is another failed effort by a troll to get some attention while assassinating the character of an entire set of union members.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ]everything's a relative...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reality exists.
> 
> A=A
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> only relatively...
> relative
> [ ˈrelətiv ]
> ADJECTIVE
> adjective: *relative*
> 
> considered in relation or in proportion to something else:
> "the relative effectiveness of the various mechanisms is not known"
> synonyms: comparative · respective · comparable · correlative · parallel ·
> corresponding
> More
> existing or possessing a specified characteristic only in comparison to something else; not absolute:
> "she went down the steps into the relative darkness of the dining room"
> synonyms: moderate · reasonable · a fair degree of · considerable ·
> comparative
> More
> 
> grammar
> denoting a pronoun, determiner, or adverb that refers to an expressed or implied antecedent and attaches a subordinate clause to it, e.g., which, who.
> (of a clause) attached to an antecedent by a relative word.
> 
> music
> (of major and minor keys) having the same key signature.
> (of a service rank) corresponding in grade to another in a different service.
> NOUN
Click to expand...


Not the point.

Relevant is a more important concept, in this case.

Your line of "reasoning" (or more accurately, equivocating,) simply isn't.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Looks like the letter did what it was supposed to. Now obies minions are telling everyone an agreement not ratified by congress is non-binding. Just like they were told when they said they didn't need it to go to congress. Apparently the letter was a good "teaching moment" for thee libs.


----------



## Uncensored2008

AzMike said:


> Looks like the letter did what it was supposed to. Now obies minions are telling everyone an agreement not ratified by congress is non-binding. Just like they were told when they said they didn't need it to go to congress. Apparently the letter was a good "teaching moment" for thee libs.



I'm just amused by these little Soros drones waving their on-line petition around..

What did their masters tell them they would DO with that? Use if for knee-pads while fillating the boiking?


----------



## paulitician

Ha, looks like the Dictator wannabe needs Congress after all. This deal is a No-Go unless the Republican Congress approves. The Republicans have the power now. It's time to start wielding it.


----------



## Ernie S.

Statistikhengst said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tipsycatlover said:
> 
> 
> 
> One good thing if Iran thought they could make obama crawl on his belly like the bitch he is,  another president isn't bound by that agreement.  It might make them not go as far as they thought they could.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not really posting to you as I recognize you're just a flaming imbecile; but I am responding to a point you inadvertently make for the benefit of others with an IQ higher than 40....
> 
> The message those 47 Republican Senators sent, not just to Iran, but to the entire globe, is .... don't make deals with America -- we don't possess the honor to keep them.
> 
> Republicans did now to our image as a nation what they did to our credit rating a few years ago... they sabotaged it in an effort to undermine Obama and cost us our credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No sir! The intended message is in 2 years you will face a POTUS with a set of balls.
> 
> obama cost us our last shred of respect in this world.
> Iranians were laughing their asses off until 47 patriots warned them that the US won't always be a paper tiger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hillary has balls? !?!?
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

More that obama but she will not be the next POTUS.


----------



## Uncensored2008

daws101 said:


> only in you twisted opinion .the only experience you have with   reason OR reasoning ....is watching someone else use it...



You're trying to convince others that the savage and brutal murder of an American citizen by a Muslim terrorist (whom fuckwad Obama lies about even being Muslim) is of no concern.

Dishonest
Disingenuous
Disgusting


----------



## usmcstinger

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.


John Kerry went to Paris and had talks with the North Vietnamese.


TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.


*Damn Near Treasonous Democrats:*
But"Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris," begins the spot, with grainy footage of the actress and a young Kerry. ". . . Then he returned and accused American troops of committing war crimes on a daily basis. Eventually, Jane Fonda apologized for her activities, but John Kerry refuses to.
Ad Says Kerry Secretly Met With Enemy But He Told Congress of It washingtonpost.com 
DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. *Negotiating with Foreign Governments is not in her job description!*
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0


----------



## Uncensored2008

Wry Catcher said:


> You are full of shit.  Your opinions are foolish and like diarrhea - constantly soiling every issue with perfidious falderal.



Hardly.

You know full well that the embrace of Iran by you demagogues is driven by your hatred of Israel and desire to see the tiny nation wiped from the face of the Earth.

The rest of America knows it too. What you are is clear to all.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you buy a dictionary, or, look up demagogue on line.  It seems your ignorance far exceeds realpolitik and intrudes into your understanding of the meaning of words.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *demagogue*
> 
> 
> Tweet
> _noun_ dem·a·gogue \ˈde-mə-ˌgäg\
> : a political leader who tries to get support by making false claims and promises and using arguments based on emotion rather than reason
> 
> 
> Shall I hold my breath waiting for your apology?
> 
> Nah, that would require character on your part....
Click to expand...


Speaking of character, why did you edit out my comment that *all* pols tell people what they want to hear.  Lying by omission (editing out my words) is probative evidence you're a liar.  Not that that will surprise anyone.

Ever listen to the words of Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachmann, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio?  Of course most pols tell the people what they want to hear, but only the worst speak to their base, and only when interviewed on Fox Entertainment, aka faux news, or to the Washington Examiner & WSJ Editorial Board.

Of course Paul and Rubio make the case for dishonesty too, both change their stump speech based on the audience.  When Paul spoke at CAL he was obsequious and almost liberal.


----------



## paulitician

usmcstinger said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> John Kerry went to Paris and had talks with the North Vietnamese.
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Damn Near Treasonous Democrats:*
> But"Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris," begins the spot, with grainy footage of the actress and a young Kerry. ". . . Then he returned and accused American troops of committing war crimes on a daily basis. Eventually, Jane Fonda apologized for her activities, but John Kerry refuses to.
> Ad Says Kerry Secretly Met With Enemy But He Told Congress of It washingtonpost.com
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel. *Negotiating with Foreign with Governments is not in her job description.*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


John Kerry calling others 'Traitors?' Wow, how deliciously ironic and hypocritical.


----------



## Coyote

*Thread has been cleaned and infractions handed out.  Discuss the topic and take the food fights to Flame Zone.*


----------



## nat4900

paulitician said:


> Ha, looks like the Dictator wannabe needs Congress after all. This deal is a No-Go unless the Republican Congress approves. The Republicans have the power now. It's time to start wielding it.


 


paulitician said:


> Ha, looks like the Dictator wannabe needs Congress after all. This deal is a No-Go unless the Republican Congress approves. The Republicans have the power now. It's time to start wielding it.


 


Yet another clueless, right winger who has NO idea of what the Constitution states.....Can someone lend this dingbat a copy of the Constitution....with lots of pictures??


----------



## nat4900

Just for fun, lets revisit the Iran-Contra affair under Ronnie, and see how exactly we are (or not) revisiting the past......


----------



## Mad Scientist

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Petition won't get anyone arrested but at least now some Liberals will know what the Logan Act actually is.
> I'm LOVING all these pissed off Americans talking about  Constitutional issues rather than Tom Brady's balls.
Click to expand...


You guys should start a dedicated thread for all 47 Senators and document their journey from Elected Official to Death Row Inmate!


----------



## nat4900

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of shit.  Your opinions are foolish and like diarrhea - constantly soiling every issue with perfidious falderal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> You know full well that the embrace of Iran by you demagogues is driven by your hatred of Israel and desire to see the tiny nation wiped from the face of the Earth.
> 
> The rest of America knows it too. What you are is clear to all.
Click to expand...

 

Well, correct me if I'm wrong......As of the last confirmed count:

Iran= zero nukes
Israel=200 nukes


----------



## PaintMyHouse

nat4900 said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of shit.  Your opinions are foolish and like diarrhea - constantly soiling every issue with perfidious falderal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> You know full well that the embrace of Iran by you demagogues is driven by your hatred of Israel and desire to see the tiny nation wiped from the face of the Earth.
> 
> The rest of America knows it too. What you are is clear to all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, correct me if I'm wrong......As of the last confirmed count:
> 
> Iran= zero nukes
> Israel=200 nukes
Click to expand...

But but but, Israel is our ally, who spies on us, while cashing our checks.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> cuz it was on tv?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An American reporter murdered by Islamic terrorists is a tad more important to those who support America than a numbers runner in Tanzania murdered by a rival gang.
> 
> I know that whole idea that America matters is something you of the left just can't get behind, but...
Click to expand...


There is not one of your past posts which even suggest you give a damn about Americans.  Not one fucking one.


----------



## Dot Com

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *EXCLUSIVE Emergency Committee for Israel Spends Big on Rep. Cotton LobeLog*
> 
> The people who helped lay the groundwork for the war in Iraq have a favorite candidate for today’s midterm election, and that candidate is Rep. Tom Cotton (R) from Arkansas’ 4th congressional district, who is challenging Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) for his Senate seat.
> 
> According to newly released FEC filings, Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month from the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), a right-wing group headed by the neoconservative pundit, Bill Kristol, who infamously predicted that the Iraq war would last two months. At its inception, the ECI was based out of the same Washington office as the Committee of the Liberation of Iraq, a pressure group that lobbied for the 2003 invasion.


well, well, well, whaddaya know  He is also speaking at a def contractor symposium. How quickly the Repubs get in line to fluff special interests  Uncensored2008


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept*

*




In an open letter organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., 47 Senate Republicans today warned the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire as soon as he leaves office.

Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.
*


----------



## Wry Catcher

paulitician said:


> Ha, looks like the Dictator wannabe needs Congress after all. This deal is a No-Go unless the Republican Congress approves. The Republicans have the power now. It's time to start wielding it.



For good or ill?  A party which is solely interested in power and not governance is tyrannical.  Let's not pretend the GOP of 2015 resembles the GOP of IKE, TR or Lincoln.

What did the Democrats do when they got power, they passed the Patient Protection Affordability Act.  What will the Republicans do now that they have the power?  Pass bills to repeal Obamacare, over and over again and never succeed?  

Overreach by the party in power has usually lead to an election loss, it will happen again, but no one every believed the current membership of the H. or Rep. are rational thus they will do what they've always done.  We can only hope they will not once again create an economic crisis or a war without end.


----------



## ALL SOLUTIONS

Iran is a rogue state.

Only  fools negotiate will rogue states.

It is appeasement.

How did that work for England with Germany(twice)?

The only good rogue state is a totally destroyed rogue state.

He who avoids war is stupid.


----------



## nat4900

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *In an open letter organized by freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., 47 Senate Republicans today warned the leaders of Iran that any nuclear deal reached with President Barack Obama could expire as soon as he leaves office.*
> 
> *Tomorrow, 24 hours later, Cotton will appear at an “Off the Record and strictly Non-Attribution” event with the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.*


 

So, the only remaining questions are these: Did Cotton get paid in cash, promises of huge campaign contributions ....or in tea bags?


----------



## paulitician

Wry Catcher said:


> paulitician said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha, looks like the Dictator wannabe needs Congress after all. This deal is a No-Go unless the Republican Congress approves. The Republicans have the power now. It's time to start wielding it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For good or ill?  A party which is solely interested in power and not governance is tyrannical.  Let's not pretend the GOP of 2015 resembles the GOP of IKE, TR or Lincoln.
> 
> What did the Democrats do when they got power, they passed the Patient Protection Affordability Act.  What will the Republicans do now that they have the power?  Pass bills to repeal Obamacare, over and over again and never succeed?
> 
> Overreach by the party in power has usually lead to an election loss, it will happen again, but no one every believed the current membership of the H. or Rep. are rational thus they will do what they've always done.  We can only hope they will not once again create an economic crisis or a war without end.
Click to expand...


Nah, the People are sick of the Communist Dictator wannabe. He's often boasted about not needing Congress. That's why the Republicans won in a record landslide. The People want his power checked. And the Republicans can now do that. They have the power to do so.


----------



## orogenicman

ALL SOLUTIONS said:


> Iran is a rogue state.
> 
> Only  fools negotiate will rogue states.
> 
> It is appeasement.
> 
> How did that work for England with Germany(twice)?
> 
> The only good rogue state is a totally destroyed rogue state.
> 
> He who avoids war is stupid.



We considered the Soviet Union to be a rogue state.  We negotiated with them with (mostly) good results.  Again, what was it you were saying?

If you believe that solving a problem without starting a war is appeasement, then you have a problem you should have checked out, because, damn.

He who is hell bent on war is not only stupid, but is surely destined for a grave somewhere.  Congratulations.


----------



## nat4900

ALL SOLUTIONS said:


> Iran is a rogue state.
> 
> Only  fools negotiate will rogue states.
> 
> It is appeasement.
> 
> How did that work for England with Germany(twice)?
> 
> The only good rogue state is a totally destroyed rogue state.
> 
> He who avoids war is stupid.


 

....and he who ENCOURAGES war gets the hatred and messes known as Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan....and 5 thousand body bags of our troops.....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Duh...there had never been a Black President before ....




* Senate Historian Can’t Find Anything In History That Matches GOP Iran Sabotage Letter *

Republicans who are already reeling from the letter that 47 of their senators sent to Iran were dealt another blow as the U.S. Senate Historian's Office can't find…


----------



## TemplarKormac

Uncensored2008 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California traveled to Iraq in 2002 to support Saddam Hussein and oppose the President.  Later it was uncovered that the Iraqi government paid for the trip (which they deny *wink wink).
> 
> US Saddam paid for lawmakers Iraq trip - USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democrats are traitors.
> 
> Always.
Click to expand...


You know... people need to stop calling other people traitors. People don't even understand what actual treason involves. Such malinformed usage of the word is sad to see. If you want to see a traitor, look at Benedict Arnold or Bowe Bergdahl.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

TemplarKormac said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California traveled to Iraq in 2002 to support Saddam Hussein and oppose the President.  Later it was uncovered that the Iraqi government paid for the trip (which they deny *wink wink).
> 
> US Saddam paid for lawmakers Iraq trip - USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democrats are traitors.
> 
> Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... people need to stop calling other people traitors. People don't even understand what actual treason involves. Such malinformed usage of the word is sad to see. If you want to see a traitor, look at Benedict Arnold or Bowe Bergdahl.
Click to expand...

or Teheran Tom Cotton....


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Character assassination is easy for the right, concern for truth too high a hurdle



That coming from someone from a party who invented the art of identity politics to cover for a lack of a premise.

Racist this
Bigoted that
Misogynist this
Anti Immigrant that

You are such a hypocrite.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> One needs to be pretty dumb not to recognize the obvious.



One only states "It's obvious" after running into a wall with their argument.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> You fear monger well, now, how about a rational dialogue on how to reduce tension and work toward a win-win solution - Obama's goal?



Obama's goal? What has his "goals" gotten US thus far? Shall I list them for you? And since when has Democrats calling their fellow Senators traitors ever been "rational dialogue?"

How are Iranian chants of "Death to Israel and America!" rational dialogue? Do you even know what "rational dialogue" means?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran won't be able to build a boosted _uranium_ fission bomb, no matter how many centrifuges they have. The best they could hope for would be a bomb the size of Little Boy or Fat Man, both of which had yields under 20 kilotons. It takes _years_ of testing and experimentation (which would be immediately known by us, Russia and China) to build a simple uranium fission bomb - and years more testing and research to progress to further designs. You can't just build an H-bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heh, so, you think Iran is limited merely by its own technology? I seriously doubt that. And you forget how long the Iranian nuclear program has been active.
> 
> Alright then, so, Iran has enough nuclear fuel at the moment to make 7 implosion style nuclear warheads (that of which you just described)
> 
> If they launched just 5 and detonated them 4 miles above the surfaces at Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Haifa, Rishon LeZion, and Ashdod (Israel's 5 largest cities), you would see nearly 300,000 people die at once. It took 9 years for that many to die from the initial explosions, radiation burns and exposure in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Given how small Israel is, the death toll would be magnified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they don't. They don't have _any_ fuel yet - 20% enriched uranium isn't fuel for any bombs.
> 
> You're also missing a really big part of the picture. Bombs have to be tested. They don't just spring into being. Implosion triggers have to be designed, and tested. None of those tests will be secret from us, or from Russia, or from China. (Hint: they don't want another member of the club, either).
> 
> There is no conceivable scenario in which Iran could _surprise_ Israel with a bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder, N Korea is so unstable, and so irrational, might they give Iran the technology and tools to make a crude nuclear bomb, or other less rational groups such as AQ, ISIS, etc.?
Click to expand...


LOL

And you worry about me fear mongering.


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> We considered the Soviet Union to be a rogue state. We negotiated with them with (mostly) good results. Again, what was it you were saying?



Actually, we crushed their economy. They tried so hard to compete with us that they imploded. We needn't have fired a shot.


----------



## orogenicman

Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?


TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We considered the Soviet Union to be a rogue state. We negotiated with them with (mostly) good results. Again, what was it you were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, we crushed their economy. They tried so hard to compete with us that they imploded. We needn't have fired a shot.
Click to expand...



And that is different from what we are doing to Iran right now, how?  Interesting that when Ronnie Raygun did it, conservatives were okay with it.


----------



## Thirty6BelowZero

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


Are you mad because the GOP has balls and don't cower to this shit house crazy administration? Does it really hurt your poor little feelings?


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> And that is different from what we are doing to Iran right now, how?



Because unlike then, we chose to ease the economic sanctions. Their economy was on the brink of collapse, but we chose to loose our foot from their neck.


----------



## orogenicman

Thirty6BelowZero said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you mad because the GOP has balls and don't cower to this shit house crazy administration? Does it really hurt your poor little feelings?
Click to expand...


What makes you believe that negotiating with Iran is an example of Obama expecting the Republicans to cower to him?


----------



## Thirty6BelowZero

orogenicman said:


> Thirty6BelowZero said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you mad because the GOP has balls and don't cower to this shit house crazy administration? Does it really hurt your poor little feelings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you believe that negotiating with Iran is an example of Obama expecting the Republicans to cower to him?
Click to expand...


Ummmmmm.......





I give up, you tell me. 


Or did you completely misread what I said?


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?



Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens? 

Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.


----------



## orogenicman

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?
> 
> Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.
Click to expand...


Where were you when Bush started the drone attacks?

We are not at war.  There was no declaration. Wars are declared against sovereign states, dude.  ISIS is not a sovereign state.


----------



## Derideo_Te

RetiredGySgt said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> Be specific explain how the letter violates the requirements established by the Constitution for treason. Shall I quote that requirement or in your ignorance can you find it on your own?
Click to expand...


Logan Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.*

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.


----------



## mikegriffith1

So you're not upset that Obama is making the unprecedented claim that he somehow has the right to make _a nuclear arms deal_ without the Senate's consent, and, even worse, that he wants to make such a deal with the fanatical, terrorist-backing, Holocaust-denying murderous regime in Iran.

No, you're not upset about that.  You're upset that in response to Obama's unprecedented usurpation, 47 Senate Republicans would dare to write an open letter to Iran's mullahs to warn them that any deal that Obama might be dumb enough to make with them would only be temporary and could end with the next president.

Find me an example of a president who presumed to have the power to make a nuke deal with a hostile nation without the Senate's consent. The Democrats who are claiming that other presidents have made deals with foreign leaders without the Senate's consent must be hoping that most Americans don't know any history. The supposed "precedents" that the Democrats have cited don't even come close to the magnitude of a nuke deal with Iran.

And the Logan Act arguably does not apply to U.S. Senators since they are part of "the authority of the United States." Also, why do you care about the Logan Act but don't care about the U.S. Constitution?


----------



## orogenicman

mikegriffith1 said:


> So you're not upset that Obama is making the unprecedented claim that he somehow has the right to make _a nuclear arms deal_ without the Senate's consent, and, even worse, that he wants to make such a deal with the fanatical, terrorist-backing, Holocaust-denying murderous regime in Iran.



First of all, he is NOT making a nuclear arms deal.  Iran has no nukes.  Secondly, he is negotiating with them, along with five other nations of the UN Security Council, to get them to comply with their treaty requirements under the NNPT.  He doesn't need permission from Congress or anyone else to negotiate with another country to get them to comply with a treaty 191 countries (including Iran) are already signatories to.  And finally, he has authority under the Constitution to negotiate such things, as well as treaties.  So even if he was negotiating a treaty with Iran in conjunction with the other members of the Security Council, he has the Constitution authority to do so.


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> Where were you when Bush started the drone attacks?



In high school, focusing on my studies, not the sordid state of American politics.



orogenicman said:


> Wars are declared against sovereign states, dude. ISIS is not a sovereign state.



Actually the definition didn't matter to you when Bush declared his "war on terror." It was an "unnecessary war" according to you. You talk a big game, but can't back it up.


----------



## orogenicman

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where were you when Bush started the drone attacks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In high school, focusing on my studies, not the sordid state of American politics.
Click to expand...


Wow, so you are but a kid.



orogenicman said:


> Wars are declared against sovereign states, dude. ISIS is not a sovereign state.





			
				templarguy said:
			
		

> Actually the definition didn't matter to you when Bush declared his "war on terror." It was an "unnecessary war" according to you. You talk a big game, but can't back it up.



That is correct.  I didn't support Bush's war.  ISIS is a direct result of it.


----------



## Dana7360

bodecea said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?
> 
> Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.
> 
> And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.
> 
> Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.
> 
> When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fortunately Congress can't force a war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think those 47 senators are hoping for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They've probably got some deep stock investments in the military industrial complex.
Click to expand...




Senator tom cotton had a meeting with the National Defense Industrial Association 24 hours after he sent that letter to Iran.

The National Defense Industrial Association is a lobbying group for defense contractors.

Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal, Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept

There's more than one reason why cotton sent that letter. cotton represents the military industrial complex. He wants a war with Iran. 

Just like most in his party.


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.



Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> Wow, so you are but a kid.


 
I'm 27 smartass.


----------



## orogenicman

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so you are but a kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 27 smartass.
Click to expand...


As I said.  You are a kid.


----------



## Coyote

mikegriffith1 said:


> So you're not upset that Obama is making the unprecedented claim that he somehow has the right to make _a nuclear arms deal_ without the Senate's consent, and, even worse, that he wants to make such a deal with the fanatical, terrorist-backing, Holocaust-denying murderous regime in Iran.
> 
> No, you're not upset with that.  You're upset that in response to Obama's unprecedented usurpation, 47 Senate Republicans would dare to write an open letter to Iran's mullahs to warn them that any deal that Obama might be dumb enough to make with them would only be temporary and could end with the next president.
> 
> *Find me an example of a president who presumed to have the power to make a nuke deal with a hostile nation without the Senate's consent.* The Democrats who are *claiming that other presidents have made deals with foreign leaders without the Senate's consent must be hoping that most Americans don't know any history*. The supposed "precedents" that the Democrats have cited don't even come close to the magnitude of a nuke deal with Iran.



Maybe you don't know any history.
_Presidents Johnson and Nixon completed several secret executive agreements, committing the US to significant security requirements without knowledge of the legislature._

Nixon and Kissenger's "back door diplomacy" negotiations to open relations with Russia and with China were done quietly and without Congress to begin with.
In 1972 Salt 1 Interum Offensive Arms Agreement which imposed a freeze on IBM's and submarine launched missiles was an executive agreement.

I think that comes close to, or even exceeds the magnitude of a nuke deal with Iran.


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, so you are but a kid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm 27 smartass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said.  You are a kid.
Click to expand...


And ageism isn't an argument.


----------



## orogenicman

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?
Click to expand...


ISIS would not exist if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.  Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.  And since you were a wee lass back then, obviously you aren't aware that Iraq wanted us out.  It is, after all, their country.


----------



## paperview

asterism said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will all the staunch defenders of Presidential authority please post links to their criticisms of Pelosi in 2007?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pelosi Meets With Syrian Leader*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hussein Malla/Associated Press
> Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, meeting today at the Presidential Palace in Damascus with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
> 
> By HASSAN M. FATTAH and GRAHAM BOWLEY
> Published: April 4, 2007
> DAMASCUS, Syria, April 4 —Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, met here today with President Bashar al-Assad of Syria and discussed a variety of Middle Eastern issues, including the situations in Iraq and Lebanon and the prospect of peace talks between Syria and Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-pelosi.html?_r=0
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the same leadership republicans like Frank Wolf and Darrell Issa who  visited with the Syrian President  around the same time as Pelosi?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did they support or oppose the President?
Click to expand...


Opposed.


----------



## paperview

*"Breaking: Republican Congressman Darrell Issa Currently In Syria For Talks"*








The AP reports that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) met with Syrian President Bashar Assad today in Damascus. And according to the article, Issa criticized the administration while on the visit:

Breaking Republican Congressman Darrell Issa Currently In Syria For Talks ThinkProgress


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.



Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.

Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Uncensored2008 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are full of shit.  Your opinions are foolish and like diarrhea - constantly soiling every issue with perfidious falderal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly.
> 
> You know full well that the embrace of Iran by you demagogues is driven by your hatred of Israel and desire to see the tiny nation wiped from the face of the Earth.
> 
> The rest of America knows it too. What you are is clear to all.
Click to expand...


Once again I refer you to the on line dictionary.  

Maybe you think you're clever by equating demagoguery with the Democratic Party, you're not; unless of course you also believe being banal is clever.

I don't hate Israel and I have no loyalty to Iran, in fact I believe organized religions are no different than a political party.  Your assertions are laughable, you post opinions with no basis in fact and seem to expect to be credible.  That is funny.


----------



## nat4900

orogenicman said:


> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not upset that Obama is making the unprecedented claim that he somehow has the right to make _a nuclear arms deal_ without the Senate's consent, and, even worse, that he wants to make such a deal with the fanatical, terrorist-backing, Holocaust-denying murderous regime in Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, he is NOT making a nuclear arms deal.  Iran has no nukes.  Secondly, he is negotiating with them, along with five other nations of the UN Security Council, to get them to comply with their treaty requirements under the NNPT.  He doesn't need permission from Congress or anyone else to negotiate with another country to get them to comply with a treaty 191 countries (including Iran) are already signatories to.  And finally, he has authority under the Constitution to negotiate such things, as well as treaties.  So even if he was negotiating a treaty with Iran in conjunction with the other members of the Security Council, he has the Constitution authority to do so.
Click to expand...


Very well stated, concise ,,,,,and perhaps over the heads of those who will hate Obama regardless of what he does or does not do.

I would just like to add by asking right wingers which country has REFUSED to sign on like the other 190...........


----------



## nat4900

[
Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?[/QUOTE]

ISIS would not exist if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.  Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.  And since you were a wee lass back then, obviously you aren't aware that Iraq wanted us out.  It is, after all, their country.[/QUOTE]

,.,,and, again, let me just add that not only would ISIS NOT exist were it not for Bush-baby (Cheney, actually) WMDs excuses.......but this whole mess with Iran would also have been taken care of by Saddam.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end ...



ROFLMNAO!  

Now THAT is _HYSTERICAL!_

What you're incapable of understanding is that deviant reasoning is NOT equitable with sound reasoning.  Irrational cults are therefore NOT EQUITABLE with rational cultures...  Thus there is no potential equity in allowing irrational cults to acquire nuclear weapons.
_
See how that works?_


----------



## orogenicman




----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

orogenicman said:


>




Well, I think that sums up the Left's understanding of the situation, PERFECTLY!

Good for you gramps!  You're all over this... .

(Reader... LOL!  Can you imagine the depths of depravity, wherein allowing the same people that flew OCCUPIED JUMBO JETS INTO OCCUPIED SKY SCRAPERS, to acquire NUCLEAR WEAPONS, to be a potential "_Path to Peace_"?  ROFLMNAO

You can NOT make this crap UP!  If a WEEK AGO you had accused that same person of BELIEVING THAT...  they would have trolled the thread for DAYS denying and 'reported' you to management for having committed libel against 'em.)


----------



## orogenicman

nat4900 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mikegriffith1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not upset that Obama is making the unprecedented claim that he somehow has the right to make _a nuclear arms deal_ without the Senate's consent, and, even worse, that he wants to make such a deal with the fanatical, terrorist-backing, Holocaust-denying murderous regime in Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, he is NOT making a nuclear arms deal.  Iran has no nukes.  Secondly, he is negotiating with them, along with five other nations of the UN Security Council, to get them to comply with their treaty requirements under the NNPT.  He doesn't need permission from Congress or anyone else to negotiate with another country to get them to comply with a treaty 191 countries (including Iran) are already signatories to.  And finally, he has authority under the Constitution to negotiate such things, as well as treaties.  So even if he was negotiating a treaty with Iran in conjunction with the other members of the Security Council, he has the Constitution authority to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very well stated, concise ,,,,,and perhaps over the heads of those who will hate Obama regardless of what he does or does not do.
> 
> I would just like to add by asking right wingers which country has REFUSED to sign on like the other 190...........
Click to expand...


Thanks.


----------



## orogenicman

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
Click to expand...


Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Coyote said:


> *Thread has been cleaned and infractions handed out.  Discuss the topic and take the food fights to Flame Zone.*




Ahhh, the smell of lysol on a Wednesday!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

Mad Scientist said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Petition won't get anyone arrested but at least now some Liberals will know what the Logan Act actually is.
> I'm LOVING all these pissed off Americans talking about  Constitutional issues rather than Tom Brady's balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys should start a dedicated thread for all 47 Senators and document their journey from Elected Official to Death Row Inmate!
Click to expand...



Hmmmm, interesting idea.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
Click to expand...


Funny, in an odd way.  Reagan bombed Libya, Obama did not - you lied.  GWB invaded and occupied Iraq, Obama sent in Navy Seals to bring OBL to justice - you lied; Obama chose to cut of the head of the snake, drones did that; Bush put boots on the ground and many lost the foot they once carried.  

Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.

Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *EXCLUSIVE Emergency Committee for Israel Spends Big on Rep. Cotton LobeLog*
> 
> The people who helped lay the groundwork for the war in Iraq have a favorite candidate for today’s midterm election, and that candidate is Rep. Tom Cotton (R) from Arkansas’ 4th congressional district, who is challenging Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) for his Senate seat.
> 
> According to newly released FEC filings, Cotton received $960,250 in supportive campaign advertising in the last month from the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), a right-wing group headed by the neoconservative pundit, Bill Kristol, who infamously predicted that the Iraq war would last two months. At its inception, the ECI was based out of the same Washington office as the Committee of the Liberation of Iraq, a pressure group that lobbied for the 2003 invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> well, well, well, whaddaya know  He is also speaking at a def contractor symposium. How quickly the Repubs get in line to fluff special interests  Uncensored2008
Click to expand...


The 47 fluffers to the kneepads!!!


----------



## Wry Catcher

ALL SOLUTIONS said:


> Iran is a rogue state.
> 
> Only  fools negotiate will rogue states.
> 
> It is appeasement.
> 
> How did that work for England with Germany(twice)?
> 
> The only good rogue state is a totally destroyed rogue state.
> 
> He who avoids war is stupid.



How much combat have you experienced?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> ALL SOLUTIONS said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is a rogue state.
> 
> Only  fools negotiate will rogue states.
> 
> It is appeasement.
> 
> How did that work for England with Germany(twice)?
> 
> The only good rogue state is a totally destroyed rogue state.
> 
> He who avoids war is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much combat have you experienced?
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  Oh GOD!  That is _ADORABLE!_


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Duh...there had never been a Black President before ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Senate Historian Can’t Find Anything In History That Matches GOP Iran Sabotage Letter *
> 
> Republicans who are already reeling from the letter that 47 of their senators sent to Iran were dealt another blow as the U.S. Senate Historian's Office can't find…



Well, now the GOP FINALLY makes it's way into the Guiness Book of World Records!


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asterism said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California traveled to Iraq in 2002 to support Saddam Hussein and oppose the President.  Later it was uncovered that the Iraqi government paid for the trip (which they deny *wink wink).
> 
> US Saddam paid for lawmakers Iraq trip - USATODAY.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democrats are traitors.
> 
> Always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know... people need to stop calling other people traitors. People don't even understand what actual treason involves. Such malinformed usage of the word is sad to see. If you want to see a traitor, look at Benedict Arnold or Bowe Bergdahl.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or Teheran Tom Cotton....
Click to expand...



That's better.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Thirty6BelowZero said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you mad because the GOP has balls and don't cower to this shit house crazy administration? Does it really hurt your poor little feelings?
Click to expand...


It's not about me, N00b.

Learn to discern and learn to debate.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Character assassination is easy for the right, concern for truth too high a hurdle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That coming from someone from a party who invented the art of identity politics to cover for a lack of a premise.
> 
> Racist this
> Bigoted that
> Misogynist this
> Anti Immigrant that
> 
> You are such a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


You're becoming more and more ridiculous.  Each of those four categories are represented daily on this message board, and the fact that each is a conclusion, not the premise you claim them to be, is telling.


----------



## Statistikhengst

orogenicman said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS would not exist if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.  Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.  And since you were a wee lass back then, obviously you aren't aware that Iraq wanted us out.  It is, after all, their country.
Click to expand...



This is absolutely correct. Saddam Hussein was a brutal son of a bitch, but he would never have allowed a freak organization like ISIS to grow in Iraq.


----------



## Clementine

Jarhead said:


> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.




Kerry came out and stated that any deal they make with Iran is not legally binding.    So, what is the point?    Just more lip service from the administration and no action, as usual.

Some idiots on the left are calling this treason, yet they supported Pelosi making a trip to Syria for talks without permission and they said nothing when Ted Kennedy had talks with Russia.

In those cases, they were attempting to undermine the administration and wanted to push their own policies.    In this case, it's a matter of someone actually stepping up and trying to address the matter because Obama has been so wishy washy and doesn't want to deal with it at all.    Obama just wants to make a few speeches to announce some lame understanding with Iran that is not legally binding and knowing they will not keep their word.   It's all about the appearance of leadership with no actual leadership.  

Obama doesn't want any input from congress on anything these days.    He thinks he's a one-man show who can do as he wishes with his pen and phone.


----------



## Statistikhengst

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, *invaded Pakistan to kill OBL*, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
Click to expand...


You are even more batshit crazy than I realized.

Has Pakistan declared war on us for a one time 10-man incursion?

You really want to call an incursion an "invasion"?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

IDIOCY PERSONIFIED! 



Wry Catcher said:


> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.



Reader: War is not a crime.  It's war... .  War is also not about winning hearts and minds, it is about killing everything and everyone with whom one is at war.

Bush's mistake was waging 'an softer, easier war'... .  

What Bush SHOULD have done, is declared martial law, rounded up the Ideological Left set them into infinite internment and killing those who refused, on the spot where they refused.

Had he done some, Islam would have long ago been properly checked, the US would not have succumbed to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, the US would not have elected an Islamic insurgent as President, the US would not now be 18+ TRILLION IN DEBT and the whole of the Middle East would not now be in the control of those who attacked up on 9-11.


----------



## orogenicman

Clementine said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kerry came out and stated that any deal they make with Iran is not legally binding.    So, what is the point?    Just more lip service from the administration and no action, as usual.
> 
> Some idiots on the left are calling this treason, yet they supported Pelosi making a trip to Syria for talks without permission and they said nothing when Ted Kennedy had talks with Russia.
> 
> In those cases, they were attempting to undermine the administration and wanted to push their own policies.    In this case, it's a matter of someone actually stepping up and trying to address the matter because Obama has been so wishy washy and doesn't want to deal with it at all.    Obama just wants to make a few speeches to announce some lame understanding with Iran that is not legally binding and knowing they will not keep their word.   It's all about the appearance of leadership with no actual leadership.
> 
> Obama doesn't want any input from congress on anything these days.    He thinks he's a one-man show who can do as he wishes with his pen and phone.
Click to expand...


If Kerry had actually come out and said the agreement would not be legally binding, then that just makes the 47 look all the dumber for sending the letter, doesn't it?  Think about it?


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?
> 
> Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.
Click to expand...


“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” 
― Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides."
Anon


----------



## orogenicman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IDIOCY PERSONIFIED!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader: War is not a crime.  It's war... .  War is also not about winning hearts and minds, it is about killing everything and everyone with whom one is at war.
> 
> Bush's mistake was waging 'an softer, easier war'... .
> 
> What Bush SHOULD have done, is declared martial law, rounded up the Ideological Left set them into infinite internment and killing those who refused, on the spot where they refused.
> 
> Had he done some, Islam would have long ago been properly checked, the US would not have succumbed to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, the US would not have elected an Islamic insurgent as President, the US would not now be 18+ TRILLION IN DEBT and the whole of the Middle East would not now be in the control of those who attacked up on 9-11.
Click to expand...


I disagree.  War happens because of a failure of leadership.  Full stop.  It is the ultimate crime.


----------



## Lakhota

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IDIOCY PERSONIFIED!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader: War is not a crime.  It's war... .  War is also not about winning hearts and minds, it is about killing everything and everyone with whom one is at war.
> 
> Bush's mistake was waging 'an softer, easier war'... .
> 
> What Bush SHOULD have done, is declared martial law, rounded up the Ideological Left set them into infinite internment and killing those who refused, on the spot where they refused.
> 
> Had he done some, Islam would have long ago been properly checked, the US would not have succumbed to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, the US would not have elected an Islamic insurgent as President, the US would not now be 18+ TRILLION IN DEBT and the whole of the Middle East would not now be in the control of those who attacked up on 9-11.
Click to expand...


You must be joking.  You can't be that mentally ill.


----------



## orogenicman

Lakhota said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDIOCY PERSONIFIED!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader: War is not a crime.  It's war... .  War is also not about winning hearts and minds, it is about killing everything and everyone with whom one is at war.
> 
> Bush's mistake was waging 'an softer, easier war'... .
> 
> What Bush SHOULD have done, is declared martial law, rounded up the Ideological Left set them into infinite internment and killing those who refused, on the spot where they refused.
> 
> Had he done some, Islam would have long ago been properly checked, the US would not have succumbed to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, the US would not have elected an Islamic insurgent as President, the US would not now be 18+ TRILLION IN DEBT and the whole of the Middle East would not now be in the control of those who attacked up on 9-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be joking.  You can't be that mentally ill.
Click to expand...


Yeah he can.


----------



## Jroc

Statistikhengst said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS would not exist if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.  Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.  And since you were a wee lass back then, obviously you aren't aware that Iraq wanted us out.  It is, after all, their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is absolutely correct. Saddam Hussein was a brutal son of a bitch,* but he would never have allowed a freak organization like ISIS to grow in Iraq*.
Click to expand...

Obama did


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IDIOCY PERSONIFIED!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader: War is not a crime.  It's war... .  War is also not about winning hearts and minds, it is about killing everything and everyone with whom one is at war.
> 
> Bush's mistake was waging 'an softer, easier war'... .
> 
> What Bush SHOULD have done, is declared martial law, rounded up the Ideological Left set them into infinite internment and killing those who refused, on the spot where they refused.
> 
> Had he done some, Islam would have long ago been properly checked, the US would not have succumbed to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, the US would not have elected an Islamic insurgent as President, the US would not now be 18+ TRILLION IN DEBT and the whole of the Middle East would not now be in the control of those who attacked up on 9-11.
Click to expand...


And we would have become the Soviet Union circa 1938, with show trials and public executions.

Fortunately, people like keys are few, far between and mostly institutionalized.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?
Click to expand...


Damn, so young, so inexperienced and so arrogant.  It's no wonder you don't have a clue.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

orogenicman said:


> I disagree.  War happens because of a failure of leadership.  Full stop.  It is the ultimate crime.



War happens, when one people demand that their own subjective needs, wants and demands override their means to reason.

Ya see Karl... War is the means by which one people compel their will upon another.

War is nature's way of solving problems which occur beyond reason.  It is a blunt solution, which serves to cull the Relativists from the herd.  It's ugly business... exercised outside of law, as a means to restore reason, to restore law.


----------



## orogenicman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  War happens because of a failure of leadership.  Full stop.  It is the ultimate crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War happens, when one people demand that their own subjective needs, wants and demands override their means to reason.
Click to expand...


As I said.  Failure of leadership.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDIOCY PERSONIFIED!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader: War is not a crime.  It's war... .  War is also not about winning hearts and minds, it is about killing everything and everyone with whom one is at war.
> 
> Bush's mistake was waging 'an softer, easier war'... .
> 
> What Bush SHOULD have done, is declared martial law, rounded up the Ideological Left set them into infinite internment and killing those who refused, on the spot where they refused.
> 
> Had he done some, Islam would have long ago been properly checked, the US would not have succumbed to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, the US would not have elected an Islamic insurgent as President, the US would not now be 18+ TRILLION IN DEBT and the whole of the Middle East would not now be in the control of those who attacked up on 9-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we would have become the Soviet Union circa 1938, with show trials and public executions.
> 
> Fortunately, people like keys are few, far between and mostly institutionalized.
Click to expand...


LOL~  Well the US was governed by the Left in 1938...  So, its possible.  But that would have been followed by a revolution to crush the Left... once and for all.

It's a shame that it didn't happen.  

Not to worry though... its coming and I expect sooner, rather than later.  Nature is going to work it all out.


----------



## orogenicman

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDIOCY PERSONIFIED!
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reader: War is not a crime.  It's war... .  War is also not about winning hearts and minds, it is about killing everything and everyone with whom one is at war.
> 
> Bush's mistake was waging 'an softer, easier war'... .
> 
> What Bush SHOULD have done, is declared martial law, rounded up the Ideological Left set them into infinite internment and killing those who refused, on the spot where they refused.
> 
> Had he done some, Islam would have long ago been properly checked, the US would not have succumbed to the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, the US would not have elected an Islamic insurgent as President, the US would not now be 18+ TRILLION IN DEBT and the whole of the Middle East would not now be in the control of those who attacked up on 9-11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And we would have become the Soviet Union circa 1938, with show trials and public executions.
> 
> Fortunately, people like keys are few, far between and mostly institutionalized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL~  Well the US was governed by the Left in 1938...  So, its possible.  But that would have been followed by a revolution to crush the Left... once and for all.
> 
> It's a shame that it didn't happen.
> 
> Not to worry though... its coming and I expect sooner, rather than later.  Nature is going to work it all out.
Click to expand...


I can imagine you getting up in the morning and declaring "boy, don't you love the smell of hate in the morning".  Get a life.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Now THAT is _HYSTERICAL!_
> 
> What you're incapable of understanding is that deviant reasoning is NOT equitable with sound reasoning.  Irrational cults are therefore NOT EQUITABLE with rational cultures...  Thus there is no potential equity in allowing irrational cults to acquire nuclear weapons.
> _
> See how that works?_
Click to expand...


"deviant reasoning" is to justify the invasion of a nation which had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC in 2001,  So I do understand, the action taken by the GWB Administration was deviant as well as those who supported it.

"Irrational cuts"?  Would it have been rational to remain in Iraq when the elected government there wanted us to leave?  When the American people elected the President on his promise to end the occupation of Iraq?  When the cost of the occupation in Iraq in blood and treasure was too high?

Nixon campaigned (his slogan in 1968 was "I have a plan") to end the Vietnam War, and in fact he did not; the war and killing went on for six more years.

No one, it seems, wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, why pretend the Obama Administration does (well, we know, don't we).


----------



## Dot Com

orogenicman said:


>







orogenicman


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

orogenicman said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.  War happens because of a failure of leadership.  Full stop.  It is the ultimate crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> War happens, when one people demand that their own subjective needs, wants and demands override their means to reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said.  Failure of leadership.
Click to expand...


Do you know what leadership means?

The subjective are LEAD by their OWN DESIRES.  The Subjective LEADERSHIP therefore serves to promote a false sense of righteousness that the pursuit of one's desires over the best interests of oneself and the best interests of others.

Such LEADERSHIP, is what is OKA: *EVIL.*

And it is that, which causes WAR.

You are part and parcel of Evil... you are part of that which is leading the US culture into its first actual Civil War.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Now THAT is _HYSTERICAL!_
> 
> What you're incapable of understanding is that deviant reasoning is NOT equitable with sound reasoning.  Irrational cults are therefore NOT EQUITABLE with rational cultures...  Thus there is no potential equity in allowing irrational cults to acquire nuclear weapons.
> _
> See how that works?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "deviant reasoning" is to justify the invasion of a nation which had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC in 2001.
Click to expand...


No... Deviant reasoning is rationalizing that because Iraq was invaded in the wake of 9-11 was because it was said to be responsible for 9-11, when in truth, such was never a reason for doing so.

Iraq was a long standing proponent of International Islamic Terrorism, having used Islamic terrorists as proxy warriors in attacking the US, its interests and allies... Iraq was also in long standing material breech of the terms to which it agreed when the US Agreed to cease firing upon Iraq, after Iraq attacked US its neighbor and US Ally Kuwait... and in the wake of 9-11... after an intense 18 months effort to bring Iraq into compliance with its obligations and with Iraq having failed to comply... it was reasonably determined that Iraq could no longer be counted as a reasonable actor... and US Leadership determined to execute that government.  And it did so in remarkably short order.

What came after that invasion and execution of the Islamic-Socialist government of Iraq, was the result of appeasing the Left.   "Winning the Hearts and Minds...", etc.  
_
See how that works?_


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

orogenicman said:


> I can imagine you getting up in the morning and declaring "boy, don't you love the smell of hate in the morning".  Get a life.



Nice deflection Karl...

_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS would not exist if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.  Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.  And since you were a wee lass back then, obviously you aren't aware that Iraq wanted us out.  It is, after all, their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is absolutely correct. Saddam Hussein was a brutal son of a bitch, but he would never have allowed a freak organization like ISIS to grow in Iraq.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY!!!


----------



## Dot Com

Wry Catcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?
> 
> Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
> ― Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_
> 
> “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides."
> Anon
Click to expand...

Teapublicans don't like diplomatic tact because it requires book larnin' . Much easier to throw some other people's kids into an Asian land war


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Dot Com said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS would not exist if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.  Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.  And since you were a wee lass back then, obviously you aren't aware that Iraq wanted us out.  It is, after all, their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is absolutely correct. Saddam Hussein was a brutal son of a bitch, but he would never have allowed a freak organization like ISIS to grow in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EXACTLY!!!
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

Yes, yes!  

Saddam, a brutal, evil mass-murderin' Islamic son of a bitch, is preferable to ISIS, obama's brutal, evil mass-murderin' Islamic son's of a bitches.

ROFLMNAO! You can NOT make this crap up... .


----------



## Statistikhengst

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS would not exist if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq in the first place.  Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.  And since you were a wee lass back then, obviously you aren't aware that Iraq wanted us out.  It is, after all, their country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is absolutely correct. Saddam Hussein was a brutal son of a bitch, but he would never have allowed a freak organization like ISIS to grow in Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> EXACTLY!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Yes, yes!
> 
> Saddam, a brutal, evil mass-murderin' Islamic son of a bitch, is preferable to ISIS, obama's brutal, evil mass-murderin' Islamic son's of a bitches.
> 
> ROFLMNAO! You can NOT make this crap up... .
Click to expand...



Apparently, the ODS has caused a great deal of brain damage with you.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Dot Com said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?
> 
> Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
> ― Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_
> 
> “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides."
> Anon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Teapublicans don't like diplomatic tact ...
Click to expand...


(Reader: You should not use standard reference text to discern the meaning of speech advanced by Leftist.

In this instance 'diplomatic tact' is defined as your dictionary defines:_* Appeasing the enemy of civilization*_.)


----------



## Dot Com

Speaking of ODS, where is  CrusaderFrank ?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Apparently, the ODS has caused a great deal of brain damage with you.



OH!  Deflection?

Cool!  Thank you... 
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.
_
(Reader: Do you see how easy this is?

Recall the Fundamentals of defeating Leftists in debate:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to speak.)


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?
Click to expand...


He wouldn't have done it had there not been an election to win.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct. I didn't support Bush's war. ISIS is a direct result of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's removal of the troops was in fact the cause of it. So, you don't seem to mind when Obama does this kind of stuff, why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn, so young, so inexperienced and so arrogant.  It's no wonder you don't have a clue.
Click to expand...


Interesting, the ad hominem comes out when you are unable to address my argument.  

Question to you: are you as mad at Obama for launching airstrikes,  droning innocent civilians, invading sovereign territory as you were at Bush for his invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?


----------



## 2aguy

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Now THAT is _HYSTERICAL!_
> 
> What you're incapable of understanding is that deviant reasoning is NOT equitable with sound reasoning.  Irrational cults are therefore NOT EQUITABLE with rational cultures...  Thus there is no potential equity in allowing irrational cults to acquire nuclear weapons.
> _
> See how that works?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "deviant reasoning" is to justify the invasion of a nation which had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC in 2001,  So I do understand, the action taken by the GWB Administration was deviant as well as those who supported it.
> 
> "Irrational cuts"?  Would it have been rational to remain in Iraq when the elected government there wanted us to leave?  When the American people elected the President on his promise to end the occupation of Iraq?  When the cost of the occupation in Iraq in blood and treasure was too high?
> 
> Nixon campaigned (his slogan in 1968 was "I have a plan") to end the Vietnam War, and in fact he did not; the war and killing went on for six more years.
> 
> No one, it seems, wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, why pretend the Obama Administration does (well, we know, don't we).
Click to expand...



Yeah...we know, because he wants them to......


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?
> 
> Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
> ― Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_
> 
> “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides."
> Anon
Click to expand...


Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Edmund Burke


----------



## Siete

2aguy said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Now THAT is _HYSTERICAL!_
> 
> What you're incapable of understanding is that deviant reasoning is NOT equitable with sound reasoning.  Irrational cults are therefore NOT EQUITABLE with rational cultures...  Thus there is no potential equity in allowing irrational cults to acquire nuclear weapons.
> _
> See how that works?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "deviant reasoning" is to justify the invasion of a nation which had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC in 2001,  So I do understand, the action taken by the GWB Administration was deviant as well as those who supported it.
> 
> "Irrational cuts"?  Would it have been rational to remain in Iraq when the elected government there wanted us to leave?  When the American people elected the President on his promise to end the occupation of Iraq?  When the cost of the occupation in Iraq in blood and treasure was too high?
> 
> Nixon campaigned (his slogan in 1968 was "I have a plan") to end the Vietnam War, and in fact he did not; the war and killing went on for six more years.
> 
> No one, it seems, wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, why pretend the Obama Administration does (well, we know, don't we).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...we know, because he wants them to......
Click to expand...


 focus on that, campaign on that, it's gotta be an election  winner !

es


----------



## 2aguy

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?
> 
> Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
> ― Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_
> 
> “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides."
> Anon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Edmund Burke
Click to expand...



or when they actively try to give Iran nuclear weapons....and brand anyone trying to stop them traitors.......


----------



## 2aguy

Siete said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Now THAT is _HYSTERICAL!_
> 
> What you're incapable of understanding is that deviant reasoning is NOT equitable with sound reasoning.  Irrational cults are therefore NOT EQUITABLE with rational cultures...  Thus there is no potential equity in allowing irrational cults to acquire nuclear weapons.
> _
> See how that works?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "deviant reasoning" is to justify the invasion of a nation which had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC in 2001,  So I do understand, the action taken by the GWB Administration was deviant as well as those who supported it.
> 
> "Irrational cuts"?  Would it have been rational to remain in Iraq when the elected government there wanted us to leave?  When the American people elected the President on his promise to end the occupation of Iraq?  When the cost of the occupation in Iraq in blood and treasure was too high?
> 
> Nixon campaigned (his slogan in 1968 was "I have a plan") to end the Vietnam War, and in fact he did not; the war and killing went on for six more years.
> 
> No one, it seems, wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, why pretend the Obama Administration does (well, we know, don't we).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...we know, because he wants them to......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> focus on that, campaign on that, it's gotta be an election  winner !
> 
> es
Click to expand...


he isn't running again.....but the Borg Collective will run another Borg Drone in his place....


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, in an odd way.  Reagan bombed Libya, Obama did not - you lied.  GWB invaded and occupied Iraq, Obama sent in Navy Seals to bring OBL to justice - you lied; Obama chose to cut of the head of the snake, drones did that; Bush put boots on the ground and many lost the foot they once carried.
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
Click to expand...


Funny how you don't read the news

Libya airstrikes Obama defends Libya mission - latimes


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Character assassination is easy for the right, concern for truth too high a hurdle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That coming from someone from a party who invented the art of identity politics to cover for a lack of a premise.
> 
> Racist this
> Bigoted that
> Misogynist this
> Anti Immigrant that
> 
> You are such a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're becoming more and more ridiculous.  Each of those four categories are represented daily on this message board, and the fact that each is a conclusion, not the premise you claim them to be, is telling.
Click to expand...


The fact you are worried about it means you have abandoned your argument.


----------



## 2aguy

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, in an odd way.  Reagan bombed Libya, Obama did not - you lied.  GWB invaded and occupied Iraq, Obama sent in Navy Seals to bring OBL to justice - you lied; Obama chose to cut of the head of the snake, drones did that; Bush put boots on the ground and many lost the foot they once carried.
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't read the news
> 
> Libya airstrikes Obama defends Libya mission - latimes
Click to expand...



See, the difference is this.....obama bombs people using drones because he loves them.....they make him sad when he has to kill them.....Bush was just a big meany......


----------



## Siete

2aguy said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "JEWS" will take care of themselves, as Arab nations have learned the hard way.  But the Obama Administration seeks an equitable end ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Now THAT is _HYSTERICAL!_
> 
> What you're incapable of understanding is that deviant reasoning is NOT equitable with sound reasoning.  Irrational cults are therefore NOT EQUITABLE with rational cultures...  Thus there is no potential equity in allowing irrational cults to acquire nuclear weapons.
> _
> See how that works?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "deviant reasoning" is to justify the invasion of a nation which had nothing to do with the attack on the WTC in 2001,  So I do understand, the action taken by the GWB Administration was deviant as well as those who supported it.
> 
> "Irrational cuts"?  Would it have been rational to remain in Iraq when the elected government there wanted us to leave?  When the American people elected the President on his promise to end the occupation of Iraq?  When the cost of the occupation in Iraq in blood and treasure was too high?
> 
> Nixon campaigned (his slogan in 1968 was "I have a plan") to end the Vietnam War, and in fact he did not; the war and killing went on for six more years.
> 
> No one, it seems, wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon, why pretend the Obama Administration does (well, we know, don't we).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...we know, because he wants them to......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> focus on that, campaign on that, it's gotta be an election  winner !
> 
> es
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> he isn't running again.....but the Borg Collective will run another Borg Drone in his place....
Click to expand...


pssst .. I'm referring to Republicans. Keep up the GOOD work


----------



## ChrisL

Good, at least someone realizes what a crazy idea it is.


----------



## ChrisL

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.



We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Then Wry is silent. That's what happens when you call me a liar.


----------



## TemplarKormac

2aguy, do you have anything productive to say?


----------



## TheOldSchool

2aguy said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, in an odd way.  Reagan bombed Libya, Obama did not - you lied.  GWB invaded and occupied Iraq, Obama sent in Navy Seals to bring OBL to justice - you lied; Obama chose to cut of the head of the snake, drones did that; Bush put boots on the ground and many lost the foot they once carried.
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't read the news
> 
> Libya airstrikes Obama defends Libya mission - latimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, the difference is this.....obama bombs people using drones because he loves them.....they make him sad when he has to kill them.....Bush was just a big meany......
Click to expand...


----------



## Statistikhengst

TheOldSchool said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, in an odd way.  Reagan bombed Libya, Obama did not - you lied.  GWB invaded and occupied Iraq, Obama sent in Navy Seals to bring OBL to justice - you lied; Obama chose to cut of the head of the snake, drones did that; Bush put boots on the ground and many lost the foot they once carried.
> 
> Terrorism is a threat to the civilized world, had it been treated as an act by criminals, the civilized world would be one in policing the world;  Bush's major fuck up was declaring a crusade and invading an Arab nation which had no involvement in the criminal act of Sept 11, 2001.
> 
> Stop trying to rewrite history, it only makes you appear more foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't read the news
> 
> Libya airstrikes Obama defends Libya mission - latimes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See, the difference is this.....obama bombs people using drones because he loves them.....they make him sad when he has to kill them.....Bush was just a big meany......
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





(pbuh)


----------



## TemplarKormac

You speak about cutting off the head of the snake,  but the snake isn't a snake but a multi headed hydra:


----------



## Statistikhengst

Oh, deep.

Wanna play with some tonka toys, too?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Al-Qaeda is not dead - Right Turn - The Washington Post


----------



## nat4900

I'll ask again, was that letter really written by Bibi or that moron, media-whore, Cotton?


----------



## Stephanie

nat4900 said:


> I'll ask again, was that letter really written by Bibi or that moron, media-whore, Cotton?



You people have no respect for anyone. it's disgusting but it's shows just what the Democrat party is made up with


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Iran letter blowback startles GOP*

*John McCain: “It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm.”
McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”*

Read more: Iran letter blowback startles GOP - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

By Burgess Everett

3/11/15 8:00 PM EDT

Updated 3/11/15 8:39 PM EDT


Read more: *Iran letter blowback startles GOP - Burgess Everett - POLITICO*


----------



## Missouri_Mike

What blowback? Looney left frothing at the mouth isn't blowback.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Amateur hour and the GOP letter writers  * Chicago Tribune


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

AzMike said:


> What blowback? Looney left frothing at the mouth isn't blowback.



Ask this guy he is the one quoted as saying there was blowback....your butt is hurting isn't it ....boo hoo
*McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”*


----------



## HenryBHough

McCain is a notorious liberal; always was.

It's only natural to expect he sympathizes with the extreme left.


----------



## johnwk

*Senator Tom Cotton is correct! Obama’s Iran “deal” isn’t worth squat!*



SEE: *Even John Kerry says the Iran deal is not legally binding*

March 11 at 12:36


*”Credit Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) for raising the issue. Without a letter reminding the White House, Congress and the American people that a deal must be approved by the Senate in order to be binding, we might never have learned from Secretary of State John Kerry that “we are not negotiating a legally binding plan.” Oh, really?”*


JWK


*
 When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?*


----------



## nat4900

Stephanie said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll ask again, was that letter really written by Bibi or that moron, media-whore, Cotton?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people have no respect for anyone. it's disgusting but it's shows just what the Democrat party is made up with
Click to expand...



respect for who, exactly.....Bibi ? the right wingers new "idol" who demands that we do his killings for him so that he can remain in power?....
Cotton? who quickly goes to his war armaments-donors to see if he did a good job for them?

Just asking.......


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*The letter was written for Sheldon Addison in exchange for hookers and blow....*


----------



## Lakhota

*No known precedent.  I repeat - no known precedent.*

The *47* Republicans who signed the Cotton letter may end up ruing the day. They should have asked Mitt Romney. He could have told them that *47* is just not the Republicans' lucky number.

GOP Senate Letter Undercutting Nuclear Negotiations Has No Known Precedent in American History - Robert Creamer


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Both of Kentucky's senators, Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul, signed the letter. Their state's _Courier-Journal_ asked:
*Has Congress gone crazy?* [...]
A blatant attempt to sabotage the discussions to limit Iran’s nuclear capacity, the letter is signed by by 47 GOP senators, aligning themselves — President Obama noted ironically — with hardliners in Iran who oppose any deal with the United States.


----------



## rhodescholar

AceRothstein said:


> Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.



Then I am in agreement with them, since iran is a fucking scum hole terror supporter, and cannot in any way be trusted.

Obama should be sued and impeached for acting against US national security interests by negotiating with terrorists.


----------



## rhodescholar

Lakhota said:


> *No known precedent.  I repeat - no known precedent.*
> 
> The *47* Republicans who signed the Cotton letter may end up ruing the day. They should have asked Mitt Romney. He could have told them that *47* is just not the Republicans' lucky number.
> 
> GOP Senate Letter Undercutting Nuclear Negotiations Has No Known Precedent in American History - Robert Creamer



Yes, there is no precedent for the letter, because the US has never had such a completely incompetent, amateurish and outright awful administration.  Putin, khameini, nasrallah, assad, castro and Xi could not be happier with this idiot in chief, he is utterly useless.

If the country had a real president, then the GOP would not have needed to write a letter.


----------



## rhodescholar

g5000 said:


> Wow.  This is one hell of a new benchmark these assholes are setting.  To deliberately be working to undermine ongoing negotiations is about as vile and treacherous as it gets.
> 
> You have to go damn near back to the Jay Treaty to see this kind of shit.



TEN fucking years of negotiations?  How many more are needed, until the sun exhausts its hydrogen?  Or until iran has conquered the parts of the mideast it does not control now?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Getting to know Tehran Tom Cotton...un Big Nut bag

For Tom Cotton letter to Iran is anything but a fiasco - The Washington Post

While in the House in 2013, Cotton introduced an amendment to prosecute the relatives of those who violated sanctions on Iran, saying that his proposed penalties of up to 20 years in prison would “include a spouse and any relative to the third degree,” including “parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids.” Forget about the fact that the Constitution expressly prohibits “corruption of blood” penalties — just consider that *Cotton wanted to take someone who had violated sanctions and imprison their grandchildren. Needless to say, this deranged piece of legislation was too much even for Republicans to stomach, and it went nowhere.*


----------



## Neotrotsky

Really  Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power 
or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?


----------



## nat4900

The letter to Iran should have headed thusly:

We republican right wingers, hereby forsaking the possibility of EVER being elected to the WH, do NOT like Obama and want to point out to you that you shouldn't like him either.....and we have sworn our allegiance to Bibi and to our armaments' donors......and, besides it all, we don't like your pistachios......


----------



## Neotrotsky

The radical left hanging their political hopes on sufficiently kissing the asses of the Iranian Mullahs
it is probably not a good sell to the American people

but good luck with that


----------



## rhodescholar

Neotrotsky said:


> Really  Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?



...let alone injured or killed thousands of american troops in iraq.  iran has murdered more americans than any country the US was not at war with, and obama will not tolerate anyone in the government weighing in on these lunatic negotiations, nor will he speak about their details in public.  Iran has conceded absolutely NOTHING in all the years of them, and the situation has shifted from iran cannot enrich at all to they can maintain thousands of centrifuges.

Who in their right mind would support this asshole?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

WASHINGTON Senate GOP s Iran letter draws unfavorable editorials Washington Watch McClatchy DC

WASHINGTON — Newspaper editorial pages around the country have not been kind to Senate Republicans this week.

A collective “Seriously?” has emerged in reaction to the open letter that 47 Republican senators penned to the Iranian leadership, which seemed designed to undercut its nuclear talks with the Obama administration.

From New England to the Great Plains, from the Gulf Coast to the West Coast, editorial boards thundered and chided.

“A blot on the 114th U.S. Senate,” opined the Detroit Free Press.

“The senators who signed the letter should be ashamed,” said the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Some sounded embarrassed.

“Cringe-worthy buffoonery on the global stage,” sighed The Salt Lake Tribune.

Others just seemed weary of Capitol Hill’s continuing dysfunction.

“Has Congress gone crazy?” wondered The Courier-Journal in Louisville.


Read more here: WASHINGTON Senate GOP s Iran letter draws unfavorable editorials Washington Watch McClatchy DC


----------



## nat4900

Neotrotsky said:


> Really  Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power
> or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?




If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???

Just asking........


----------



## Neotrotsky

Really, when has the MSM been easy on Republicans.


----------



## Neotrotsky

nat4900 said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really  Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power
> or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???
> 
> Just asking........
Click to expand...


the same

 as how A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America, 
but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???
> 
> Just asking........



Uh, first off, it was iran who was declaring death to america for decades, not the other way around.  It was iran murdering 241 US marines and 85 diplomats in beirut in 1983, not the other way around.  It was iran who has conquered lebanon, iraq, syria, yemen, bahrain, gaza and is trying to do the same in morocco, not the US.  It is iran's cancerous regime of terrorist filth that has created ISIS, and has helped assad slaughter 250K people there, not the US.

McCain's intent is to wipe that diseased regime off the map, not murder every iranian - that is not the case with iran's scumbag government.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Neotrotsky said:


> Really, when has the MSM been easy on Republicans.


Oh poor baby ...


----------



## nat4900

TyroneSlothrop said:


> WASHINGTON Senate GOP s Iran letter draws unfavorable editorials Washington Watch McClatchy DC
> 
> WASHINGTON — Newspaper editorial pages around the country have not been kind to Senate Republicans this week.
> 
> A collective “Seriously?” has emerged in reaction to the open letter that 47 Republican senators penned to the Iranian leadership, which seemed designed to undercut its nuclear talks with the Obama administration.
> 
> From New England to the Great Plains, from the Gulf Coast to the West Coast, editorial boards thundered and chided.
> 
> “A blot on the 114th U.S. Senate,” opined the Detroit Free Press.
> 
> “The senators who signed the letter should be ashamed,” said the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
> 
> Some sounded embarrassed.
> 
> “Cringe-worthy buffoonery on the global stage,” sighed The Salt Lake Tribune.
> 
> Others just seemed weary of Capitol Hill’s continuing dysfunction.
> 
> “Has Congress gone crazy?” wondered The Courier-Journal in Louisville.
> 
> 
> Read more here: WASHINGTON Senate GOP s Iran letter draws unfavorable editorials Washington Watch McClatchy DC



Well, my friend, right wingers will shrug the above to that "darn liberal media"......You should see what the foreign press is stating....most think that these 47 dingbats just handed over the WH to dems in 2016.


----------



## Lakhota

*47* just ain't a lucky number for Republicans.  Mitt knows...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## rhodescholar

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Oh poor baby ...



Hilarious how low IQ left-wingers like this will claim in one sentence; "the media is not left leaning" - but when they get exposed as such, they taunt using stupid images like this.  Totally non credible, which is why so few people with any brains are leftwing any more.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

rhodescholar said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh poor baby ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hilarious how low IQ left-wingers like this will claim in one sentence; "the media is not left leaning" - but when they get exposed as such, they taunt using stupid images like this.  Totally non credible, which is why so few people with any brains are leftwing any more.
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Iran Letter: 165000+ Sign Petition to Prosecute GOP Senators for TreasonABC News‎*


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Well, my friend, right wingers will shrug the above to that "darn liberal media"......You should see what the foreign press is stating....most think that these 47 dingbats just handed over the WH to dems in 2016.



The same foreign leftist press that rooted for obama in 2008, but can't understand why obama the awful sits on his hands while the world burns in Ukraine and syria, and the worst scum of the earth (iran) rolls across the mideast?  Are we actually supposed to give a flying fuck what that press has to say?


----------



## nat4900

Uh, first off, it was iran who was declaring death to america for decades, not the other way around.  It was iran murdering 241 US marines and 85 diplomats in beirut in 1983, not the other way around.  It was iran who has conquered lebanon, iraq, syria, yemen, bahrain, gaza and is trying to do the same in morocco, not the US.  It is iran's cancerous regime of terrorist filth that has created ISIS, and has helped assad slaughter 250K people there, not the US.

McCain's intent is to wipe that diseased regime off the map, not murder every iranian - that is not the case with iran's scumbag government.[/QUOTE]

Even though you're spewing whatever FOX told you to spew (not think),let's say for argument sake that you're "correct:........Why then did Bush and your ilk spend a trillion in Iraq?....


----------



## Neotrotsky

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, when has the MSM been easy on Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh poor baby ...
Click to expand...


Thanks for caring 

but the point was ,,, your post on the MSM being "outraged" is not shocking
I have no doubt that the DNC is shocked as well


Image, senators who actually want to follow the constitution 
Bastards !


----------



## rhodescholar

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ...



Idiot reported, likely to be banned from the thread.  Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## Neotrotsky

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Iran Letter: 165000+ Sign Petition to Prosecute GOP Senators for TreasonABC News‎*




No doubt disappointed Democrats from seeing the House and Senate go to Republicans
Plus, the mere thought of holding Papa Obama to the Constitution must be very upsetting to the Left....
Poor things, they must be so lost

Really, such a small number


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Even though you're spewing whatever FOX told you to spew (not think),let's say for argument sake that you're "correct:........Why then did Bush and your ilk spend a trillion in Iraq?....



The typical far left low IQ moron attacking with the "Fox news" juvenile insult.  Moron, I do not watch Fox news, since i do not own a TV.  Nice try, idiot.

Second, who said i supported Bush or the iraq war?  And where is it written that because iraq was a mistake, the US can NEVER ever engage in a military action again?

Funny how the low IQ idiots whine about how wrong the intelligence community was on iraq, then turn around and extol its accounts regarding iran.  How do these people have the brain power to walk upright?


----------



## nat4900

The same foreign leftist press that rooted for obama in 2008, but can't understand why obama the awful sits on his hands while the world burns in Ukraine and syria, and the worst scum of the earth (iran) rolls across the mideast?  Are we actually supposed to give a flying fuck what that press has to say?[/QUOTE]

Do you feel just a wee bit paranoid, there chum???? Yep, the entire world press (and sane people) are stalking you.......check under your bed, quick.


----------



## TemplarKormac

nat4900 said:


> The letter to Iran should have headed thusly:
> 
> We republican right wingers, hereby forsaking the possibility of EVER being elected to the WH, do NOT like Obama and want to point out to you that you shouldn't like him either.....and we have sworn our allegiance to Bibi and to our armaments' donors......and, besides it all, we don't like your pistachios......



Hah! And Democrats should have their own slogan:

"Ready for Hillary's emails."


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Do you feel just a wee bit paranoid, there chum???? Yep, the entire world press (and sane people) are stalking you.......check under your bed, quick.



You seem rather unintelligent, so I'll help you...go research how many foreign papers' editorials in europe and worldwide were praying for obama to be elected.  Facts much?

International media reaction to the United States presidential election 2008 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"_The Associated Press_ reported that "Obama-mania was evident not only across Europe but also in much of the Islamic world."[3]"


----------



## rightwinger

Republicans are now pen pals with Iran

Never thought I would see the day


----------



## Lakhota

Judging from the NaziCon posts in this thread - I would say they are scared shitless that Congress and the White House have been gift wrapped and handed to Democrats in 2016.


----------



## nat4900

The typical far left low IQ moron attacking with the "Fox news" juvenile insult.  Moron, I do not watch Fox news, since i do not own a TV.  Nice try, idiot.

Second, who said i supported Bush or the iraq war?  And where is it written that because iraq was a mistake, the US can NEVER ever engage in a military action again?

Funny how the low IQ idiots whine about how wrong the intelligence community was on iraq, then turn around and extol its accounts regarding iran.  How do these people have the brain power to walk upright?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, yeah, I really believe you were a Gore voter and didn't like Bush-baby.......and, dingbat, it wasn't "bad intelligence" that got us into Iraq, it was the lies of the right wing, neocon idiots you supported


----------



## Lakhota

rightwinger said:


> Republicans are now pen pals with Iran
> 
> Never thought I would see the day



Yep, they are palling around with terrorists.  I wonder what Palin has to say about that.


----------



## rhodescholar

A VERY funny line from my link above:

"_Kitabat_, a Sunni-leaning newspaper in Iraq, wrote that Obama's election was a "chance to offset Iranian influence.""

If they only knew then this schmuck-in-chief would be handing the keys to the kingdom over to iran...


----------



## nat4900

[[/QUOTE]


No doubt disappointed Democrats from seeing the House and Senate go to Republicans
Plus, the mere thought of holding Papa Obama to the Constitution must be very upsetting to the Left....
Poor things, they must be so lost

Well, lets be fair here....congress did not really go to "republicans'...rather to a cadre of tea baggers.....LOL


----------



## occupied

Lakhota said:


> Judging from the NaziCon posts in this thread - I would say they are scared shitless that Congress and the White House have been gift wrapped and handed to Democrats in 2016.


That kind reality will not set in until it hits them in the face, they still think Republicans have done a good thing on behalf of their president, Benjamin Netanyahu.


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> Republicans are now pen pals with Iran
> 
> Never thought I would see the day



Well after Papa Obama and the Democrats let them have all that nuclear power
who wouldn't want to be their friends


----------



## Lakhota

Some Republicans are saying it was all a big joke.  Ha...ha...


----------



## Neotrotsky

Papa Obama big joke
yeah but that is old news


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Yeah, yeah, I really believe you were a Gore voter and didn't like Bush-baby.......and, dingbat, it wasn't "bad intelligence" that got us into Iraq, it was the lies of the right wing, neocon idiots you supported



The prototype low IQ leftist, loaded with wrong assumptions.  I did not vote in 2004, and what lies were those idiot if the intelligence was accurate?  Uhhhh, think of something quick, dimwit.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> A VERY funny line from my link above:
> 
> "_Kitabat_, a Sunni-leaning newspaper in Iraq, wrote that Obama's election was a "chance to offset Iranian influence.""
> 
> If they only knew then this schmuck-in-chief would be handing the keys to the kingdom over to iran...



If you give them an inch, they will take a mile.  They don't care about or respect the United States.


----------



## rhodescholar

occupied said:


> That kind reality will not set in until it hits them in the face, they still think Republicans have done a good thing on behalf of their president, Benjamin Netanyahu.



After the obliteration of midterm elections in 2014, a rational human would have to say that the 2016 presidential is the republicans to lose.


----------



## Neotrotsky




----------



## johnwk

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Iran letter blowback startles GOP*
> 
> *John McCain: “It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm.”
> McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”*
> 
> Read more: Iran letter blowback startles GOP - Burgess Everett - POLITICO
> 
> By Burgess Everett
> 
> 3/11/15 8:00 PM EDT
> 
> Updated 3/11/15 8:39 PM EDT
> 
> 
> Read more: *Iran letter blowback startles GOP - Burgess Everett - POLITICO*




If Obama hadn’t created the illusion that he can make law by executive order, there would not have been any need to make sure Iran’s leaders know Obama cannot make any deal with them without our Senate’s approval.


Obama brought this crap on himself.  He is not King Obama as he portrays himself to the world.


The 47 Senators who signed the letter to Iran’s leaders engaged in a good faith effort to notify Iran’s leaders that any deal Obama strikes with them must be approved by the Senate of the United States.  They were spot on!

JWK





*

When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?*


----------



## rightwinger

Neotrotsky said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are now pen pals with Iran
> 
> Never thought I would see the day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well after Papa Obama and the Democrats let them have all that nuclear power
> who wouldn't want to be their friends
Click to expand...

Let em have it?

republicans are trying to sabotage attempts to control it

Why do Republicans hate America?


----------



## Lakhota

*Unnamed Republican sources now trying to claim Iran letter was meant as a 'cheeky' joke*

In the wake of the backlash over the Republican Party's latest attempt to undermine the President of the United States with their open letter to Iran, telling them not to trust America and signed by 47 Republican Senators, unnamed Republican sources are now rolling out an amazingly stupid defense:

Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a lighthearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a "cheeky" reminder of the congressional branch’s prerogatives.​
"The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations," said a top GOP Senate aide.​
Yeah, right. Good luck with that one, boys.

The only thing the Republican Party is leaving at the water's edge these days is their credibility.

Wow, what a joke...on the Senators.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## ChrisL

johnwk said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Iran letter blowback startles GOP*
> 
> *John McCain: “It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm.”
> McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”*
> 
> Read more: Iran letter blowback startles GOP - Burgess Everett - POLITICO
> 
> By Burgess Everett
> 
> 3/11/15 8:00 PM EDT
> 
> Updated 3/11/15 8:39 PM EDT
> 
> 
> Read more: *Iran letter blowback startles GOP - Burgess Everett - POLITICO*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Obama hadn’t created the illusion that he can make law by executive order, there would not have been any need to make sure Iran’s leaders know Obama cannot make any deal with them without our Senate’s approval.
> 
> 
> Obama brought this crap on himself.  He is not King Obama as he portrays himself to the world.
> 
> 
> The 47 Senators who signed the letter to Iran’s leaders engaged in a good faith effort to notify Iran’s leaders that any deal Obama strikes with them must be approved by the Senate of the United States.  They were spot on!
> 
> JWK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Islamic terrorist activities begin in our southern Border States or cities like New York City?*
Click to expand...


None of the other world leaders and especially the ones in the ME have respect for Mr. Obama.  I think that much is obvious.  I can only imagine what those patriarchal goons must think.


----------



## Neotrotsky

rightwinger said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans are now pen pals with Iran
> 
> Never thought I would see the day
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well after Papa Obama and the Democrats let them have all that nuclear power
> who wouldn't want to be their friends
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let em have it?
> 
> republicans are trying to sabotage attempts to control it
> 
> Why do Republicans hate America?
Click to expand...


Really hate of America is the
Democrats
who are determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

rightwinger said:


> Why do Republicans hate America?



So you're asking why those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America, OKA: _Americans.._. hate America?

ROFLMNAO!

_*DELUSION ON PARADE!*_​


----------



## Lakhota

During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.’”

Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal, Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept

He sounds dangerously psycho to me.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Sad how the Democrats have to use as a measure of one's patriotism , how much one defends and supports the narcissism of Papa Obama



A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America, but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.


----------



## nat4900

Lakhota said:


> Some Republicans are saying it was all a big joke.  Ha...ha...



Interesting isn't it? The same "it was just a joke" excuse used by those racist students in Okla.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Tehran Tom, Congressional rent-boy.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Neotrotsky said:


> Sad how the Democrats have to use as a measure of one's patriotism , how much one defends and supports the narcissism of Papa Obama
> 
> 
> 
> A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America, but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.




There are no leftist Americans... .   And that is quite simply, the truth of it.


----------



## ChrisL

Well, I for one think it's awesome.  AT least somebody cares about Americans and how we feel about this little deal.


----------



## nat4900

Lakhota said:


> During his senate campaign, he told a tele-townhall that ISIS and Mexican drug cartels joining forces to attack Arkansas was an ‘urgent problem.’”
> 
> Immediately After Launching Effort to Scuttle Iran Deal, Senator Tom Cotton to Meet with Defense Contractors - The Intercept
> 
> He sounds dangerously psycho to me.




I'm kind of reminded of Sinclair Lewis' famous quote...."When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."


----------



## Lakhota

Tehran Tom is making a quick name for himself.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Except that today it is wrapped in hemp clothing and carrying an Obama pin


----------



## Dot Com

Lakhota said:


> Some Republicans are saying it was all a big joke.  Ha...ha...


They can't wiggle their way out of it now.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Republicans hate America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're asking why those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America, OKA: _Americans.._. hate America?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> _*DELUSION ON PARADE!*_​
Click to expand...


They just can't understand why Americans do not trust Obama to make the best decisions on Iran

New found friends of the Democrats


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Dot Com said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some Republicans are saying it was all a big joke.  Ha...ha...
> 
> 
> 
> They can't wiggle their way out of it now.
Click to expand...

It's a joke alright, like their religion and ability to govern, not to mention their politics and grasp of American history.


----------



## ChrisL

Neotrotsky said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Republicans hate America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're asking why those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the principles that define America, OKA: _Americans.._. hate America?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> _*DELUSION ON PARADE!*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They just can't understand why Americans do not trust Obama to make the best decisions on Iran
> 
> New found friends of the Democrats
Click to expand...


They are a terrible regime.  Could you imagine the trouble they will be when and if they ever develop nuclear weapons?  Are people really naive enough to think that nuclear power won't lead to their scientists developing nuclear weapons?


----------



## JimH52

The President should be making the agreements with foreign government, with the consent of the Senate.  But the President should be making the foreign policy.

Who Makes United States Foreign Policy


----------



## ChrisL

JimH52 said:


> The President should be making the agreements with foreign government, with the consent of the Senate.  The frigin crazy House has NOTHING to do with it.
> 
> Who Makes United States Foreign Policy



Well somebody needs to step in and stop the madness.


----------



## JimH52

ChrisL said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The President should be making the agreements with foreign government, with the consent of the Senate.  The frigin crazy House has NOTHING to do with it.
> 
> Who Makes United States Foreign Policy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well somebody needs to step in and stop the madness.
Click to expand...


I am sure the Democrats will return the favor, when or if, the GOP ever wins the WH again.


----------



## Neotrotsky

*Who has to - With the Advice and Consent


Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution*

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur...


The Democrats really never did appreciate the Constitution


----------



## ChrisL

JimH52 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The President should be making the agreements with foreign government, with the consent of the Senate.  The frigin crazy House has NOTHING to do with it.
> 
> Who Makes United States Foreign Policy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well somebody needs to step in and stop the madness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure the Democrats will return the favor, when or if, the GOP ever wins the WH again.
Click to expand...


If they try to make "deals" with Iran that allows them to have any type of nuclear power, then I would hope so.  This is just . . . pure madness.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Neotrotsky

Democrat's
 new friends


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JimH52 said:


> The President should be making the agreements with foreign government, with the consent of the Senate.  But the President should be making the foreign policy.
> 
> Who Makes United States Foreign Policy



Well, that is a solid idea ya have there... but that assumes that 'The President' was not born to a foreign national communist, is not an advocate of Foreign Ideas Hostile to American principle and has for 6 years NOT advanced the interests of the enemies of the United States beyond any means to deny his culpability as an enemy insurgent and embarrass the intellectually less fortunate sycophants who lack the objectivity to recognize the OBVIOUS!

So, since that's reality, the Americans have decided to shut down you and the cult... .   And laugh at you for the idiots ya are for having touted the subversive fuck for as long as ya have.


----------



## Lakhota

*Tehran Tom!  Palling around with terrorists.*


----------



## Neotrotsky

next thing you know

he will be giving them a path to get more uranium


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Lakhota said:


> *Tehran Tom!  Palling around with terrorists.*


From being all butt hurt someone questions obies love of country to  attacking an actual war vet. You people really are some serious turds.


----------



## HenryBHough

AzMike said:


> From being all butt hurt someone questions obies love of country to  attacking an actual war vet. You people really are some serious turds.



Yeah, but don't forget they're OUR turds and without them we'd have nothing at which to laugh.


----------



## occupied

Neotrotsky said:


> Democrat's
> new friends


My friends are the members of the United States armed forces and I do not want to waste their lives and limbs in another war meant only to enrich the war profiteers and give you warhawks tiny little erections.


----------



## Neotrotsky

AzMike said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tehran Tom!  Palling around with terrorists.*
> 
> 
> 
> From being all butt hurt someone questions obies love of country to  attacking an actual war vet. You people really are some serious turds.
Click to expand...



Indeed, the Democrat's measure of patriotism has been lowered to the bar of
how much one supports Papa Obama in his unconstitutional efforts

They have gone from a political party to a cult


----------



## occupied

Neotrotsky said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tehran Tom!  Palling around with terrorists.*
> 
> 
> 
> From being all butt hurt someone questions obies love of country to  attacking an actual war vet. You people really are some serious turds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Democrat's measure of patriotism has been lowered to the bar of
> how much one supports Papa Obama in his unconstitutional efforts
> 
> They have gone from a political party to a cult
Click to expand...

Bullshit, there is nothing unconstitutional going on here, just a bunch of assholes who are scared Obama may rob them of justification for another useless war. Why do you want a war so badly?


----------



## Neotrotsky

occupied said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat's
> new friends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friends are the members of the United States armed forces and I do not want to waste their lives and limbs in another war meant only to enrich the war profiteers and give you warhawks tiny little erections.
Click to expand...


"members of the United States armed forces "
what units ?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

occupied said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tehran Tom!  Palling around with terrorists.*
> 
> 
> 
> From being all butt hurt someone questions obies love of country to  attacking an actual war vet. You people really are some serious turds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Democrat's measure of patriotism has been lowered to the bar of
> how much one supports Papa Obama in his unconstitutional efforts
> 
> They have gone from a political party to a cult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, there is nothing unconstitutional going on here, just a bunch of assholes who are scared Obama may rob them of justification for another useless war. Why do you want a war so badly?
Click to expand...

You're so confused you used yesterdays DNC talking point.


----------



## occupied

Neotrotsky said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat's
> new friends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friends are the members of the United States armed forces and I do not want to waste their lives and limbs in another war meant only to enrich the war profiteers and give you warhawks tiny little erections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "members of the United States armed forces "
> what units ?
Click to expand...

??????


----------



## Lakhota

Will Tehran Tommy make a run for president?


----------



## occupied

AzMike said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tehran Tom!  Palling around with terrorists.*
> 
> 
> 
> From being all butt hurt someone questions obies love of country to  attacking an actual war vet. You people really are some serious turds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, the Democrat's measure of patriotism has been lowered to the bar of
> how much one supports Papa Obama in his unconstitutional efforts
> 
> They have gone from a political party to a cult
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, there is nothing unconstitutional going on here, just a bunch of assholes who are scared Obama may rob them of justification for another useless war. Why do you want a war so badly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're so confused you used yesterdays DNC talking point.
Click to expand...

 I'm anti-war everyday of the week.


----------



## Neotrotsky

occupied said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrat's
> new friends
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My friends are the members of the United States armed forces and I do not want to waste their lives and limbs in another war meant only to enrich the war profiteers and give you warhawks tiny little erections.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "members of the United States armed forces "
> what units ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ??????
Click to expand...



What part of the military ?


----------



## occupied

Neotrotsky said:


> What part of the military ?


The part you want to send to their deaths.


----------



## Neotrotsky

So you lied 

got it


----------



## occupied

Neotrotsky said:


> So you lied
> 
> got it


Eat shit warhawk, be clear with your point or shove it up your ass.


----------



## Neotrotsky

My point was clear.
It was a friendly question.

However, your reaction makes questions on your claims
to be reasonable

No matter how one tries to spin it
Giving Iran the ability to get more uranium
is not a path to peace

good luck trying to sell that one


Caveat emptor , indeed


----------



## occupied

Neotrotsky said:


> My point was clear.
> It was friendly question.
> 
> However, your reaction makes questions on your claims
> to be reasonable
> 
> No matter how one tries to spin it
> Giving Iran the ability to get more uranium
> is not a path to peace
> 
> good luck trying to sell that one


Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Dot Com said:


> Speaking of ODS, where is  CrusaderFrank ?



Probaton was revoked, he was caught smelling the bicycle seats at the elementary school again.


----------



## nat4900

[
Bullshit, there is nothing unconstitutional going on here, just a bunch of assholes who are scared Obama may rob them of justification for another useless war. Why do you want a war so badly?[/QUOTE]

The biggest fear for those right wingers in congress is a deal with Iran that may win for Obama yet another Nobel.........as far as these dimwitted right wingers on this thread.....well, they're just clueless and full of hate for a president a bit too dark-skinned for their delicate "sensibilities."


----------



## rhodescholar

occupied said:


> Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.



Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.

Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:

Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon): 

"While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?
> 
> Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
> ― Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_
> 
> “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides."
> Anon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Edmund Burke
Click to expand...


I wouldn't characterize McConnell or Boehner as good men, but they do nothing very very well.


----------



## Wry Catcher

ChrisL said:


> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
Click to expand...


And the alternative is ...?


----------



## ChrisL

Wry Catcher said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the alternative is ...?
Click to expand...


There doesn't have to be an alternative.  Why does there have to be an alternative?  We could just ignore Iran, at least until they, like many other ME countries, decide to join us here in modern times.  A lot of us tire of their savage behaviors.


----------



## occupied

rhodescholar said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.
> 
> Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:
> 
> Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):
> 
> "While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."
Click to expand...



TLDR. The same sort of people who said Saddam had a weapons program capable of striking at Israel and Europe are telling us much the same shit about Iran, excuse me for my skepticism, I didn't fall for it the first time and I damned sure am not going to fall for it again. I would much rather try something more cool-headed that does not cost a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and makes things worse. You people bitch about what everything costs except War, when it comes to that it's "Damned the deficit and roll the money presses."


----------



## Wry Catcher

Neotrotsky said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really  Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power
> or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the same
> 
> as how A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America,
> but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.
Click to expand...


SEDITION - "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch."    GOP Senators must wear flag pins, otherwise no one would guess they were patriots, because they are not.


----------



## ChrisL

occupied said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.
> 
> Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:
> 
> Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):
> 
> "While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TLDR. The same sort of people who said Saddam had a weapons program capable of striking at Israel and Europe are telling us much the same shit about Iran, excuse me for my skepticism, I didn't fall for it the first time and I damned sure am not going to fall for it again. I would much rather try something more cool-headed that does not cost a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and makes things worse. You people bitch about what everything costs except War, when it comes to that it's "Damned the deficit and roll the money presses."
Click to expand...


Not approving a nuclear Iran is NOT going to war.  Only a fool would endorse the idea that Iran should have nuclear power.  It's idiotic.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.
> 
> Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:
> 
> Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):
> 
> "While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TLDR. The same sort of people who said Saddam had a weapons program capable of striking at Israel and Europe are telling us much the same shit about Iran, excuse me for my skepticism, I didn't fall for it the first time and I damned sure am not going to fall for it again. I would much rather try something more cool-headed that does not cost a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and makes things worse. You people bitch about what everything costs except War, when it comes to that it's "Damned the deficit and roll the money presses."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not approving a nuclear Iran is NOT going to war.  Only a fool would endorse the idea that Iran should have nuclear power.  It's idiotic.
Click to expand...

Didn't know you were the ruler of the world.  When did you get that title?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ChrisL said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the alternative is ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There doesn't have to be an alternative.  Why does there have to be an alternative?  We could just ignore Iran, at least until they, like many other ME countries, decide to join us here in modern times.  A lot of us tire of their savage behaviors.
Click to expand...

Because the issue doesn't involve just the United States but other countries in the context of international talks.

It's this sort of ignorance and simplistic naivete that's the problem.


----------



## cnm

Uncensored2008 said:


> Looked like the killing fields to me, sploogy.
> 
> I think I'll not take your word for it.


Invincible ignorance is, as ever, invincible.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.
> 
> Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:
> 
> Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):
> 
> "While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TLDR. The same sort of people who said Saddam had a weapons program capable of striking at Israel and Europe are telling us much the same shit about Iran, excuse me for my skepticism, I didn't fall for it the first time and I damned sure am not going to fall for it again. I would much rather try something more cool-headed that does not cost a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and makes things worse. You people bitch about what everything costs except War, when it comes to that it's "Damned the deficit and roll the money presses."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not approving a nuclear Iran is NOT going to war.  Only a fool would endorse the idea that Iran should have nuclear power.  It's idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't know you were the ruler of the world.  When did you get that title?
Click to expand...


It's always been mine, didn't you know?    And if I ruled the world, we wouldn't have these problems.


----------



## ChrisL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheOldSchool said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the alternative is ...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There doesn't have to be an alternative.  Why does there have to be an alternative?  We could just ignore Iran, at least until they, like many other ME countries, decide to join us here in modern times.  A lot of us tire of their savage behaviors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the issue doesn't involve just the United States but other countries in the context of international talks.
> 
> It's this sort of ignorance and simplistic naivete that's the problem.
Click to expand...


*Because the issue doesn't involve just the United States but other countries in the context of international talks.*

Yes, and why is that?


----------



## ChrisL

These are a people who don't hesitate to hang people from cranes for being homosexuals and stone women to death.  I wonder if anyone remembers Neda?


----------



## Wry Catcher

occupied said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.
> 
> Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:
> 
> Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):
> 
> "While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> TLDR. The same sort of people who said Saddam had a weapons program capable of striking at Israel and Europe are telling us much the same shit about Iran, excuse me for my skepticism, I didn't fall for it the first time and I damned sure am not going to fall for it again. I would much rather try something more cool-headed that does not cost a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and makes things worse. You people bitch about what everything costs except War, when it comes to that it's "Damned the deficit and roll the money presses."
Click to expand...


Spot On!!!  Well said and there can be no rebuttal (thus expect to be called names).


----------



## orogenicman

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have done it had there not been an election to win.
Click to expand...


He was killed on May 2, 2011.  So, erm, what election do you suppose there was to win?


----------



## cnm

orogenicman said:


> We are not at war.  There was no declaration. Wars are declared against sovereign states, dude.  ISIS is not a sovereign state.


Well not quite, the US manages to declare war against nouns.


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> These are a people who don't hesitate to hang people from cranes for being homosexuals and stone women to death.  I wonder if anyone remembers Neda?



No one denies that Iran is rule by evil men.  That is not the issue here.  But they are not stupid.  The issue is how to keep them  from getting nukes.  Bomb them into the stone age (which would never work), sent in ground troops (we saw how well that worked for Saddam Hussein), or try to get them to the table and work  out a verifiable agreement with the UNSC?  You tell me.


----------



## cnm

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> [...] (Reader... LOL!  Can you imagine the depths of depravity, wherein allowing the same people that flew OCCUPIED JUMBO JETS INTO OCCUPIED SKY SCRAPERS, to acquire NUCLEAR WEAPONS, to be a potential "_Path to Peace_"?  ROFLMNAO
> 
> You can NOT make this crap UP!  If a WEEK AGO you had accused that same person of BELIEVING THAT...  they would have trolled the thread for DAYS denying and 'reported' you to management for having committed libel against 'em.)


Can't go wrong with geo-political knowledge like that.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are a people who don't hesitate to hang people from cranes for being homosexuals and stone women to death.  I wonder if anyone remembers Neda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies that Iran is rule by evil men.  That is not the issue here.  But they are not stupid.  The issue is how to keep them  from getting nukes.  Bomb them into the stone age (which would never work), sent in ground troops (we saw how well that worked for Saddam Hussein), or try to get them to the table and work  out a verifiable agreement with the UNSC?  You tell me.
Click to expand...


How about tell them no.  No, they cannot be trusted with any kind of nuclear technology.  The mullahs run things in Iran, and they are known to be religious fanatics who believe in the return of the 12th disciple.    It would be crazy to give them any such okay, IMO.  Just crazy.  They already, as it stands now, threaten and make things difficult for others.  Imagine what kind of trouble they could cause?  They are just too much in the dark ages and superstitious to trust.


----------



## Wry Catcher

cnm said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are not at war.  There was no declaration. Wars are declared against sovereign states, dude.  ISIS is not a sovereign state.
> 
> 
> 
> Well not quite, the US manages to declare war against nouns.
Click to expand...


True, and it seems drugs and terrorism have won.  Poverty still exists as do Superfund Sites waiting for the Congress to fund their cleanup.  Until we begin to elect adults to The Congress we will continue to give lip service to serious issues, and make hysterical appearances on TV to attack the character of others on silly issues like e-mails and sexual peccadilloes.


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> TEN fucking years of negotiations?  How many more are needed, until the sun exhausts its hydrogen?  Or until iran has conquered the parts of the mideast it does not control now?


It would be a bit quicker if the US would continue removing Iran's enemies. You've done Iraq, maybe Saudi next?


----------



## cnm

Neotrotsky said:


> Really, when has the MSM been easy on Republicans.


The leading cable channel and the largest circulation newspaper seem to manage.


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are a people who don't hesitate to hang people from cranes for being homosexuals and stone women to death.  I wonder if anyone remembers Neda?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one denies that Iran is rule by evil men.  That is not the issue here.  But they are not stupid.  The issue is how to keep them  from getting nukes.  Bomb them into the stone age (which would never work), sent in ground troops (we saw how well that worked for Saddam Hussein), or try to get them to the table and work  out a verifiable agreement with the UNSC?  You tell me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How about tell them no.  No, they cannot be trusted with any kind of nuclear technology.  The mullahs run things in Iran, and they are known to be religious fanatics who believe in the return of the 12th disciple.    It would be crazy to give them any such okay, IMO.  Just crazy.  They already, as it stands now, threaten and make things difficult for others.  Imagine what kind of trouble they could cause?  They are just too much in the dark ages and superstitious to trust.
Click to expand...


Iran has had nuclear technology since the 1970s.  We gave it to them (when a Republican was president, in fact).  They are members of the NNPT.  And as along as they comply with that treaty, they have every right to the technology.  That is entirely what this is about.


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> Uh, first off, it was iran who was declaring death to america for decades, not the other way around.  It was iran murdering 241 US marines and 85 diplomats in beirut in 1983, not the other way around.  It was iran who has conquered lebanon, iraq, syria, yemen, bahrain, gaza and is trying to do the same in morocco, not the US.  It is iran's cancerous regime of terrorist filth that has created ISIS, and has helped assad slaughter 250K people there, not the US.
> 
> McCain's intent is to wipe that diseased regime off the map, not murder every iranian - that is not the case with iran's scumbag government.


And all because the US overthrew its demoratically elected government and installed a puppet regime. Those Iranians have no sense of proportion.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

cnm said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> TEN fucking years of negotiations?  How many more are needed, until the sun exhausts its hydrogen?  Or until iran has conquered the parts of the mideast it does not control now?
> 
> 
> 
> It would be a bit quicker if the US would continue removing Iran's enemies. You've done Iraq, maybe Saudi next?
Click to expand...


Well we've got a LOT of work to do, with the Left having placed the Middle east in the hands of Islamic terrorists.

But I do think you've a good point and we probably should start the next chapter in Iran.  Crystalizing Tehran... carbon shadows and the like... then set up a world wide ban of Islam.  

But only because Islam is the embodiment of pure evil.


----------



## cnm

ChrisL said:


> If they try to make "deals" with Iran that allows them to have any type of nuclear power, then I would hope so.  This is just . . . pure madness.


The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

cnm said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they try to make "deals" with Iran that allows them to have any type of nuclear power, then I would hope so.  This is just . . . pure madness.
> 
> 
> 
> The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.
Click to expand...

Oh but they want to play World Police, and then get pissed when someone shoots back...


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?
> 
> Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
> ― Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_
> 
> “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides."
> Anon
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wouldn't characterize McConnell or Boehner as good men, but they do nothing very very well.
Click to expand...


Just like our C in C. He'll just threaten to hit Iran with a Nerf stick and call it a deal.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really  Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power
> or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the same
> 
> as how A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America,
> but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SEDITION - "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch."    GOP Senators must wear flag pins, otherwise no one would guess they were patriots, because they are not.
Click to expand...


My oh my, look how angry you are.


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have done it had there not been an election to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was killed on May 2, 2011.  So, erm, what election do you suppose there was to win?
Click to expand...


How could you possibly forget the 2012 election? He had to have a campaign pitch going into an election year.

"Al-Qaeda is on the run and Bin Laden is dead," he said.


----------



## ChrisL

cnm said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they try to make "deals" with Iran that allows them to have any type of nuclear power, then I would hope so.  This is just . . . pure madness.
> 
> 
> 
> The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.
Click to expand...


AS another poster already stated, we don't really WANT to be involved, we HAVE to be involved for the good and security of the world.  Too bad one of these other pussy countries won't take the reigns for a change.  Let them be the "hated ones" for a while.  Most of us Americans are tired of this crap anyways.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really  Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power
> or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the same
> 
> as how A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America,
> but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SEDITION - "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch."    GOP Senators must wear flag pins, otherwise no one would guess they were patriots, because they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My oh my, look how angry you are.
Click to expand...


I'm not angry, I'm embarrassed.  People all over the world read posts by stupid Americans like you, if reflects poorly on those of us who actually think.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they try to make "deals" with Iran that allows them to have any type of nuclear power, then I would hope so.  This is just . . . pure madness.
> 
> 
> 
> The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AS another poster already stated, we don't really WANT to be involved, we HAVE to be involved for the good and security of the world.  Too bad one of these other pussy countries won't take the reigns for a change.  Let them be the "hated ones" for a while.  Most of us Americans are tired of this crap anyways.
Click to expand...

You have to be involved?  No, you don't.  There was a world before America. and there will be one after.


----------



## TemplarKormac

orogenicman said:


> The issue is how to keep them from getting nukes.



They already have enough 20% Uranium to enrich to weapons grade should they feel so inclined.




orogenicman said:


> Bomb them into the stone age (which would never work), sent in ground troops (we saw how well that worked for Saddam Hussein)



We captured him little more than 9 months after invaded. I'd call that a win, eh? What history book are you reading?




orogenicman said:


> or try to get them to the table and work out a verifiable agreement with the UNSC?



You know how shady they are, you can't possibly to get a bunch of theocrats to agree to a deal, unless it unfairly favors them.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really  Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power
> or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the same
> 
> as how A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America,
> but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SEDITION - "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch."    GOP Senators must wear flag pins, otherwise no one would guess they were patriots, because they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My oh my, look how angry you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, I'm embarrassed.  People all over the world read posts by stupid Americans like you, if reflects poorly on those of us who actually think.
Click to expand...


Yep, you're angry. Angry that people decided to stand up to your king.  Now, I am far from stupid, and at least I don't stoop to calling people traitors each and every time they challenge my guy. Grow up.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have done it had there not been an election to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was killed on May 2, 2011.  So, erm, what election do you suppose there was to win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could you possibly forget the 2012 election? He had to have a campaign pitch going into an election year.
> 
> "Al-Qaeda is on the run and Bin Laden is dead," he said.
Click to expand...


Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's 
Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have done it had there not been an election to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was killed on May 2, 2011.  So, erm, what election do you suppose there was to win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could you possibly forget the 2012 election? He had to have a campaign pitch going into an election year.
> 
> "Al-Qaeda is on the run and Bin Laden is dead," he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's
> Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).
Click to expand...


Technically he did complete the mission and acquire the objective.  

Your point?


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neotrotsky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the same
> 
> as how A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America,
> but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SEDITION - "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch."    GOP Senators must wear flag pins, otherwise no one would guess they were patriots, because they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My oh my, look how angry you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, I'm embarrassed.  People all over the world read posts by stupid Americans like you, if reflects poorly on those of us who actually think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, you're angry. Angry that people decided to stand up to your king.  Now, I am far from stupid, and at least I don't stoop to calling people traitors each and every time they challenge my guy. Grow up.
Click to expand...


You need a reality check, let's start with your claim you are far from stupid.  I'd guess an IQ of somewhere in the mid 90's,  based on the syntax and words you use.  You also confuse me with claiming I stoop to calling people traitors, that is the claim made by keys, one of your pals on the far right.

I posted the definition of Sedition, had you the sense of a person with a triple digit IQ you wouldn't need to lie and make false claims.  Capable people have the ability to post sensible arguments based on facts - your opinions are generally based on emotions or are an echo of right wing propaganda.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have done it had there not been an election to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was killed on May 2, 2011.  So, erm, what election do you suppose there was to win?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How could you possibly forget the 2012 election? He had to have a campaign pitch going into an election year.
> 
> "Al-Qaeda is on the run and Bin Laden is dead," he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's
> Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically he did complete the mission and acquire the objective.
> 
> Your point?
Click to expand...


Technically thousands of Americans died and many more suffered life long wounds after his remarks.  I suppose I need to make a technical adjustment and change my opinion to the dull normal - say 86 to 88.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> You need a reality check, let's start with your claim you are far from stupid. I'd guess an IQ of somewhere in the mid 90's, based on the syntax and words you use



118 actually. Can't judge a person solely by his grammar, you know, but as a liberal you try.



Wry Catcher said:


> You also confuse me with claiming I stoop to calling people traitors, that is the claim made by keys, one of your pals on the far right.



No. It was made by the NY Daily News.






That's the second time you've failed to research your facts in this thread. Moving on to your next witty riposte:




Wry Catcher said:


> I posted the definition of Sedition, had you the sense of a person with a triple digit IQ you wouldn't need to lie and make false claims.



In fact, I didn't. You insist on calling people liars when you have no real substance to base your argument on. Just why are you insulting my intelligence in the first place?




Wry Catcher said:


> Capable people have the ability to post sensible arguments based on facts



From what I've seen from this exchange, all I saw were your opinions. _Capable_ people can mount arguments without calling people names and insulting them. Simple. 




Wry Catcher said:


> your opinions are generally based on emotions or are an echo of right wing propaganda.



Lovely, the "you're using nothing but right wing propaganda" meme. Do you have something more...original?


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> Technically thousands of Americans died and many more suffered life long wounds after his remarks.



Thousands of Americans who were proud to fight for America. You? How do you fight for your country? By playing the tough guy/gal on an internet forum. How sad for you.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Wry Catcher said:


> You need a reality check



No. You need a basic education in law and practice, and  then a reality check

Your dictionary definition:



Wry Catcher said:


> SEDITION - "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch." GOP Senators must wear flag pins, otherwise no one would guess they were patriots, because they are not.



Versus the legal definition:

18 USC § 2384
*
Seditious Conspiracy*

_"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, *conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States*, *or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof,* they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."_

Under this law, these Senators did not commit Seditious Conspiracy, as they never attempted to forcefully overthrow or destroy the government of the United States, or _by force_ prevent it from carrying out its constitutionally granted authority.

Notice how the words "by force" are used _four times_ in the statute, and as such "by force" does not include a letter to Iran consisting of little more than _two to three sheets of paper. _Oh the innocuity! The horror!

I'll take your dictionary definition of "sedition" and raise you one federal statute defining "sedition" in its proper context. Go read up on the law before you start calling people traitors or accusing them of sedition. Perhaps it would serve you well to _look up the law_ instead of using the dictionary. A dictionary doesn't hold the weight of law.

How smart do you feel now?

Now, having swiftly and devastatingly kicked your backside in the debate, you must excuse me; I have a Level 63 Wizard to get to 70 before bed.


----------



## cnm

ChrisL said:


> AS another poster already stated, we don't really WANT to be involved, we HAVE to be involved for the good and security of the world.  Too bad one of these other pussy countries won't take the reigns for a change.  Let them be the "hated ones" for a while.  Most of us Americans are tired of this crap anyways.


What a load of wank. The good and security of, for instance, China and Russia is at the bottom of the list of US priorities.


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Iran letter blowback startles GOP*
> 
> *John McCain: “It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm.”
> McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”*
> 
> Read more: Iran letter blowback startles GOP - Burgess Everett - POLITICO
> 
> By Burgess Everett
> 
> 3/11/15 8:00 PM EDT
> 
> Updated 3/11/15 8:39 PM EDT
> 
> 
> Read more: *Iran letter blowback startles GOP - Burgess Everett - POLITICO*



Well, DUH! 

When 87% of the GOP Senatorial Caucus signs it's name to such tripe, what do they expect?

This means in "Klartext" that only 7 GOP Senators had the good sense to NOT sign their names and we don't even know if all of them were informed about the letter before it was published.

The blowback is well deserved.  And I intend to make sure that they can't live it down. I can see the 2016 ad now....

And in terms of that petition, that had 8,900 signatures on it less than two days ago:

File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government

There are currently 205,714 signatures, double the amount needed for this petition to have to come to the attention of the White House.

Now, chickenshits that they are, the GOP rats who signed this nonsense will argue that it was an "open letter", as if they had no idea in the world whether the Iranian government was going to see it. It's part of their 3rd grade mentality.  Where the GOP fails miserably is in realizing that in the world where virtually EVERYTHING is videoed, audioed and definitely archived on the net, there is no way for them to roll time back and act as if it didn't happen.

The utter stupidity, the naivitee, the sheer incompetence and the brazen hatred of America on the part of the GOP is nothing less than astounding.

Has anyone here actually asked why the GOP caucus allowed a freshman Senator to do this? Tom Cotton (R-Tee Potty-AR) has only been on the job for two months and a little more than one week. He hasn't even had time to learn the ropes yet. How could all of those very seasoned GOP Senators be this dumb?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Swift-boat Cotton

*We're not supposed to bash Cotton because he's a vet, but John Kerry was fair game.*
What short memories people have.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> sure gaybait you are a right wing regular bastard pretending to be a normal person...you are strictly a wing nut...



As I keep explaining to the wingnuts, I'm a pragmatist. I go with what works.  

I guess I have to explain it to the moonbats as well. 

Reality- Obama will negotiate a largely meaningless agreement with Iran that Congress won't ratify.  He'll try to call it an accomplishment. 

But it was really stupid for the Senators to do this, mostly because it sends a signal that we aren't negotiating in good faith.


----------



## Neotrotsky

orogenicman said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where were you when Bush started the drone attacks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In high school, focusing on my studies, not the sordid state of American politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, so you are but a kid.
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wars are declared against sovereign states, dude. ISIS is not a sovereign state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> templarguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the definition didn't matter to you when Bush declared his "war on terror." It was an "unnecessary war" according to you. You talk a big game, but can't back it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.  I didn't support Bush's war.  ISIS is a direct result of it.
Click to expand...



Too funny- yes blame Bush

-Papa Obama had fanned the rebellion in Syria and kept it going for three full years,
while doing nothing to help
-The poorly planned withdrawal from Iraq
- Pushing “democracy” through demands of  free participation of religious and sectarian parties in elections.

Granted, Papa Obama's complete failures and handling of
Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya  may be too much for the left to handle

At least all Carter did was give us modern state of terrorism, Iran.



In at interview with _The New Yorker_,  Obama said of ISIS:

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a JV team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant. I think there is a distinction between the capacity and reach of a bin Laden and a network that is actively planning major terrorist plots against the homeland versus jihadists who are engaged in various local power struggles and disputes, often sectarian.”


No doubt, Bush told him to say that

Which is why, Americans do not trust Papa Obama to do make the correct
decisions on Iran

Really, helping them to get uranium, it is a hard sell for the left
good luck with that


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Swift-boat Cotton
> 
> *We're not supposed to bash Cotton because he's a vet, but John Kerry was fair game.*
> What short memories people have.



John Kerry was fair game because of what he did AFTER he came back. the real problem with John Kerry is he never owned up to sliming his fellow vets.  He just thought, 'Hey, I've got three purple hearts for minor injuries, everyone will just forget I called American Soldiers baby killers". 

They didnt.


----------



## JoeB131

Seawytch said:


> Really? That was an actual official statement from a union representative or are you painting all labor unions with the actions of one individual, Joe?



If someone threatened to gut my wife like a deer, I don't think I would make that kind of distinction. And I'm generally pro-union.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


>




Hard to find?  How about Bob McDermont going to Baghdad before the invasion? 

Congress' "Dear Commendante Letter" to Danny the Kiddy Diddler Ortega?  

Nancy Pelosi going to Syria in 2005 after they were complicate in the assassination of Lebanon's president?


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> It appears to me that the treasonous letter sent by 47 recalcitrant Senators was part of a two pronged attempt to derail the Policy course decided by our Democratically elected President Obama.
> 
> The other prong of this classic "Hammer and Tong" operation was the invitation [without notification of the POTUS] to Netanyahu to come the Congress and sandbag the President...Unnnbelievable treachery ....NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON



Yes, how dare they point out to the Iranians that any agreement with Obama they reach will be meaningless because they probably won't lift the sanctions.  

It's bad form, because it tells the other six nations we aren't negotiating in good faith. But frankly, guy, if Obama just wants a treaty so he can have a treaty, that's kind of silly.


----------



## Neotrotsky

Missile shield pulled from Europe, Egypt, Libya,
his lies to the American people on health care alone,

People all over the world already know
Papa Obama can not be trusted

Hard for the left to believe
outside of his support in the US...
on the world stage,  no one takes
him as a serious player  or trustworthy


----------



## JoeB131

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is different from what we are doing to Iran right now, how?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because unlike then, we chose to ease the economic sanctions. Their economy was on the brink of collapse, but we chose to loose our foot from their neck.
Click to expand...


So you think inflicting misery on people is a good strategy because we don't like the form of government they picked?  

Seriously?  

We want democracy for the middle east, unless they pick leaders we don't like.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> But it was really stupid for the Senators to do this, mostly because it sends a signal that we aren't negotiating in good faith.


*Republicans  never ever under any circumstance negotiate in good Faith...they are fundamentally fanatical....*


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> We want democracy for the middle east, unless they pick leaders we don't like.


Like for instance Republicans hate the Black  President and hate that "WE THE PEOPLE"...so they made it their mission to ensure an unsuccessful Presidency...they have used a two pronged hammer and tongs operation to scuttle Obama's initiatives with Iran ...one prong was inviting crazy Bibi to address crazy Congress and the other is conspiring to sabotage Obama by sending a letter to Iran..

*Iran Offers to Mediate Talks Between Republicans and Obama*
The New Yorker‎-2 days ago
TEHRAN (The_Borowitz Report_)—Stating that “their continuing hostilities are a threat to ...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> .
> 
> They didnt.


A gang of heavily financed lying bastards smeared Kerry and whay they did is now known as "Swiftboating"... when one says such and such is getting "swiftboated" it means slandered....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> As I keep explaining to the wingnuts, I'm a pragmatist. I go with what works.



So you are under the impression Republican Governance works...one State "Mississippi"


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears to me that the treasonous letter sent by 47 recalcitrant Senators was part of a two pronged attempt to derail the Policy course decided by our Democratically elected President Obama.
> 
> The other prong of this classic "Hammer and Tong" operation was the invitation [without notification of the POTUS] to Netanyahu to come the Congress and sandbag the President...Unnnbelievable treachery ....NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, how dare they point out to the Iranians that any agreement with Obama they reach will be meaningless because they probably won't lift the sanctions.
> 
> It's bad form, because it tells the other six nations we aren't negotiating in good faith. But frankly, guy, if Obama just wants a treaty so he can have a treaty, that's kind of silly.
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

The official IRNA news agency on Thursday quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as calling the letter a sign of *"the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration."*


----------



## Statistikhengst

AzMike said:


> What blowback? Looney left frothing at the mouth isn't blowback.




NY Daily is "looney Left"?
Townhall is "looney Left"
RCP is "looney Left"?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Report: Mossad undercuts Benjamin Netanyahu, warns US .*..*

*Israeli intelligence officials have apparently come around to the same view shared by both the Obama administration as well as American spy agencies
*

www.jpost.com/.../Report-*Mossad*-undercuts-Netanya...

anti Semites in the Mossad


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> But frankly, guy, if Obama just wants a treaty so he can have a treaty, that's kind of silly.



Yeah you are one fantastic pragmatist sure sure and a liberal; sure sure
Report: Mossad undercuts Benjamin Netanyahu, warns US .*..*
*Israeli intelligence officials have apparently come around to the same view shared by both the Obama administration as well as American spy agencies*


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> They didnt.
> 
> 
> 
> A gang of heavily financed lying bastards smeared Kerry and whay they did is now known as "Swiftboating"... when one says such and such is getting "swiftboated" it means slandered....
Click to expand...


what did these guys say, specifically, that wasn't true?  

Thanks.  

No, the real problem was that Kerry didn't own up to what he did when he was hanging with Jane Fonda.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I keep explaining to the wingnuts, I'm a pragmatist. I go with what works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are under the impression Republican Governance works...one State "Mississippi"
Click to expand...


Depends.  I live in Illinois, a state where the Democrats have been completely in charge since 2002, and they've managed to fuck up everything.  

Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Walker has done a pretty good job. Pence has done a good job in Indiana. 

You get this, right, that the Democrats had their chance and pretty much blew it, right?


----------



## cnm

JoeB131 said:


> John Kerry was fair game because of what he did AFTER he came back. the real problem with John Kerry is he never owned up to sliming his fellow vets.  He just thought, 'Hey, I've got three purple hearts for minor injuries, everyone will just forget I called American Soldiers baby killers".
> 
> They didnt.


How could he lie like that? Some-one should have called him on it.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But frankly, guy, if Obama just wants a treaty so he can have a treaty, that's kind of silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah you are one fantastic pragmatist sure sure and a liberal; sure sure
> Report: Mossad undercuts Benjamin Netanyahu, warns US .*..*
> *Israeli intelligence officials have apparently come around to the same view shared by both the Obama administration as well as American spy agencies*
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with anything I said.  

Okay, one more time. Any agreement that Obama reaches with the Ayatollah's is going to be pretty meaningless. Congress won't ratify it and it won't really stop the IRanians from making progress towards a bomb. But since the rest of the world- Namely Europe, Russia and China, want to start trading with Iran again, Obama needs an agreement so that it won't look like the sanctions just fell apart on their own. 

So everyone smiles for the cameras and nothing changes.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> what did these guys say, specifically, that wasn't true?


what did they say that was true ???


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> What does that have to do with anything I said.
> 
> 
> So everyone smiles for the cameras and nothing changes.


Once Joeb131[most folks are OK with abusing prisoners in US jails] speaks everyone else back off ...he is a genius.NOT


Apparently Mossad disagrees with you but why would Mossad disagree with you after all you are a"pragmatist" it has to do with showing that you are all opinion  no facts no nothing just blowing hard and pretending you are liberal...you are strictly "wing nut"


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> what did these guys say, specifically, that wasn't true?
> 
> 
> 
> what did they say that was true ???
Click to expand...


pretty much everything. 

Kerry did put in claims for purple hearts for superficial injuries.  That's not a bad thing in and of itself. My dad (an Army Medic in WWII)  told me about guys who cut their hands on C-ration cans and put in for purple hearts.  Bob Dole got his first purple heart from grenade fragments from a grenade he didn't throw far enough. 

What other Vietnam vets were offended about was Kerry came back from the War and claimed the rest of them were engaging in an orgy or rape and murder and compared our troops to Genghis Khan. 

Which he totally did.  

Then he tried to pretend that shit didn't happen. Jane Fonda was nowhere to be found in 2004.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Once Joeb131[most folks are OK with abusing prisoners in US jails] speaks everyone else back off ...he is a genius.NOT
> 
> 
> Apparently Mossad disagrees with you but why would Mossad disagree with you after all you are a"pragmatist" it has to do with showing that you are all opinion no facts no nothing just blowing hard and pretending you are liberal...you are strictly "wing nut"



Again, what does the Mossad's political jockeying have to do with what I said.  

One more time, any agreement Obama reaches with IRan is going to be meaningless.  Everyone kind of knows this, no one wants to say it out loud.  

Iran will still be free to test ICBM's, still be free to enrich uranium, still be free to conduct nuclear research, and they get most of the sanctions lifted, but the rest of the world was going to drop those sanctions, anyway.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> Depends.  I live in Illinois, a state where the Democrats have been completely in charge since 2002, and they've managed to fuck up everything.
> 
> Meanwhile, in Wisconsin, Walker has done a pretty good job. Pence has done a good job in Indiana.



Your viewpoint is "common".....  wrong as usual .but certainly common

Here you go "MR Pragmatic"  LOL






The common viewpoint is that Republicans are good for business, which is good for the economy.  Republican policies – and the more Adam Smith, invisible hand, limited regulation, lassaiz faire the better – are expected to create a robust, healthy, growing economy.  Meanwhile, the common view of Democrat policies is that they too heavily favor regulation and higher taxes which are economy killers.


*Right?*

* Well, for those who feel this way it may be time to review the last 80 years of economic history,*
Want a Better Economy? History Says Vote Democrat...its from Forbes a well known Commie Liberal entity


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Your viewpoint is "common"..... wrong as usual .but certainly common
> 
> Here you go "MR Pragmatic" LOL



Uh, no. Walker got re-elected.  Pence got re-elected.  Pat Quinn got THROWN OUT ON HIS ASS!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> Again, what does the Mossad's political jockeying have to do with what I *said.  *




*Who the hell is Mossad compared to the incomparable Joeb131[most folks are OK with US prisoners in jail being abused]*

While Mossad is "political jockeying" you speak from a much higher level of knowledge and commitment to truth. *NOT*...you are just a wannabe Republican


----------



## cnm

JoeB131 said:


> [...]
> What other Vietnam vets were offended about was Kerry came back from the War and claimed the rest of them were engaging in an orgy or rape and murder and compared our troops to Genghis Khan.[...]


Pity there wasn't any evidence to back that up.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your viewpoint is "common"..... wrong as usual .but certainly common
> 
> Here you go "MR Pragmatic" LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no. Walker got re-elected.  Pence got re-elected.  Pat Quinn got THROWN OUT ON HIS ASS!
Click to expand...

Yeah that is correct but its not because they do better in maging economics...they lie better...they block folks from voting ...they use wedge issues and fear...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

cnm said:


> Pity there wasn't any evidence to back that up.



Dude when Joeb131 speaks even the Mossad stands back ....


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Who the hell is Mossad compared to the incomparable Joeb131[most folks are OK with US prisoners in jail being abused]*
> 
> While Mossad is "political jockeying" you speak from a much higher level of knowledge and commitment to truth. *NOT*...you are just a wannabe Republican



Guy, i just don't have a high tolerance for political bullshit.  Obama is trying to get an agreement to burnish what even Democrat are starting to consider a failed presidency.  (and, yes, i voted for Obama in 2012, and would again, given the alternative).   forget the fact that it will be a largely meaningless agreement that will do nothing to stop the Iranians from getting a bomb. Forget it will never get ratified by this or any other Congress.  Obama got him an agreement, and that's the important thing. 

He'll have a picture of himself shaking hands with the representatives of the Ayatollahs. Meanwhile the Ayatollahs will take over Iraq and Yemen and make progress towards a bomb. 

Probably not much we can - or even should - do about that.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your viewpoint is "common"..... wrong as usual .but certainly common
> 
> Here you go "MR Pragmatic" LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no. Walker got re-elected.  Pence got re-elected.  Pat Quinn got THROWN OUT ON HIS ASS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah that is correct but its not because they do better in maging economics...they lie better...they block folks from voting ...they use wedge issues and fear...
Click to expand...


No, you see, guy, American politics is cyclical. IN 2006-2008, the GOP got thrown out on its ass because they weren't getting the job done.  In 2014-16, the democrats will.  

Shit, the fact that Jeb Bush is even viable and all the Democrats have is "America's Ex-Wife" is a sad commentary.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, i just don't have a high tolerance for political bullshit.  .




You eat sleep and drink GOP political bullshit...you have benefited from Union activism over the last 75 years and you are on the side of Koch slave Scott Walker ...you stupidly believe that Republicans are better economic managers...you stupidly believe in Walker..you know you said you did not want Unions in Govt...your hero  Walker said he would only wanted Govt unions harmed ...turns out he wants all unions crushed in private industry...he lied but he is your great hero ...


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If someone threatened to gut my wife like a deer, I don't think I would make that kind of distinction. And I'm generally pro-union.
> 
> 
> 
> *Blog: Sheriffs group cried for Obama to be hanged | PunditFact*
> GOP calls for Obama lynching dude....
Click to expand...


And Obama has compared the Right Wing to terrorists. so what's your point? 


It's okay for Obama to compare his opponents to terrorists when they make threats and disagree with him, but boy, Scott Walker better not fucking do it, when they threaten to gut his wife like a dear and tell him they know where his children go to school and they terrorize his elderly parents.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> Shit, the fact that Jeb Bush is even viable and all the Democrats have is "America's Ex-Wife" is a sad commentary.



do not worry Walker is always there with lots of Koch cash ..


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

I can tell Joeb131 is a Right wing nut because of the mean Gish Gallop ...


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> You eat sleep and drink GOP political bullshit...you have benefited from Union activism over the last 75 years and you are on the side of Koch slave Scott Walker ...you stupidly believe that Republicans are better economic managers...you stupidly believe in Walker..you know you said you did not want Unions in Govt...your hero Walker said he would only wanted Govt unions harmed ...turns out he wants all unions crushed in private industry...he lied but he is your great hero ...



Guy, lazy government workers getting obscene benefits doesn't benefit me in the least.  

FDR said that government workers shouldn't unionize.  I have no problem with them unionizing, but I have a huge problem with them getting six figure retirement packages at 50 that the rest of us have to pay crushing taxes to support.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> I can tell Joeb131 is a Right wing nut because of the mean Gish Gallop ...



No, i'm just not the kind of moonbat like you are that gives the leftwing a bad name.  

Do you even HAVE a job, because it looks like you are here all day?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> in private industry...he lied but he is your great hero ...



Guy, lazy government workers getting obscene benefits doesn't benefit me in the least. 

.[/QUOTE]
  You only benefit from Koch brothers policies .......wealth concentrated in the top 1 percent is what will benefit you. NOT


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> Do you even HAVE a job, because it looks like you are here all day?



 and that is your business ..how? what the fk do you do Mr Pragmatic


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell Joeb131 is a Right wing nut because of the mean Gish Gallop ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, i'm just not the kind of moonbat like you are that gives the leftwing a bad name.
Click to expand...

Moonbat I like it...its used exclusively by Right wingers...you are one...


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> You only benefit from Koch brothers policies .......wealth concentrated in the top 1 percent is what will benefit you. NOT



I don't benefit from those either.  But you are missing the point.  Why should I as an IL taxpayer have to pay for a teacher or a garbage truck driver to retire at 50 at full salary?  

What's the rationalization for that?  Why is that even a good policy?


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell Joeb131 is a Right wing nut because of the mean Gish Gallop ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, i'm just not the kind of moonbat like you are that gives the leftwing a bad name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moonbat I like it...its used exclusively by Right wingers...you are one...
Click to expand...


Wingnuts and Moonbats are a like in their fanaticism.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even HAVE a job, because it looks like you are here all day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is your business ..how? what the fk do you do Mr Pragmatic
Click to expand...


I have a full time job in manufacturing.  I also have a side business where I write resumes for people. Thanks for asking. 

So I take it by your indignant answer that you are permanently unemployable.  No wonder you live in mortal terror that taxpayers might stop subsidizing your lifestyle.


----------



## nat4900

TyroneSlothrop said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> do not worry Walker is always there with lots of Koch cash ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, my friend, regarding Walker and the Koch puppeteers, I haven't yet decided who is playing the role of whore and who is playing the role of pimp.....
Click to expand...


----------



## JoeB131

Nat, I think you need to learn how to use the quote feature.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wry Catcher said:


> Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's
> Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).


...which proves that you are still clueless after many years.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> Wingnuts and Moonbats are a like in their fanaticism.


That is why I consider you a master wing nut....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Speaking of Joeb131 and GOP idiocy *

*New York Times Editorial: Republican Idiocy on Iran*
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/o...type=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0 

After helping to ignite a firestorm over a possible nuclear agreement with Iran, Senator John McCain, a former Republican presidential candidate, is now sort of acknowledging his error. “Maybe that wasn’t exactly the best way to do that,” he said on Fox News on Tuesday. 

He was referring to the disgraceful and irresponsible letter that he and 46 Senate colleagues sent to Iran’s leaders this week that generated outrage from Democrats and even some conservatives. 

The letter was an attempt to scare the Iranians from making a deal that would limit their nuclear program for at least a decade by issuing a warning that the next president could simply reverse any agreement. It was a blatant, dangerous effort to undercut the president on a grave national security issue by communicating directly with a foreign government. 


Maybe Mr. McCain, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, should have thought about the consequences before he signed the letter, which was drafted by Tom Cotton, a Republican of Arkansas, a junior senator with no foreign policy credentials. Instead of trying to be leaders and statesmen, the Republicans in Congress seem to think their role is outside the American government, divorced from constitutional principles, tradition and the security interests of the American people.


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> Nat, I think you need to learn how to use the quote feature.




Indeed, I'm new to this board and not too savvy in the intricacies of posting....but an old hand in the realm of political hypocrisies.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even HAVE a job, because it looks like you are here all day?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and that is your business ..how? what the fk do you do Mr Pragmatic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a full time job in manufacturing.  I also have a side business where I write resumes for people. Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...

If you work in manufacturing you have benefited from Unions ...
I am in my 60 s and retired Mr Pragmatic Liberal  wing nut ... I worked since I was 11 years old...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only benefit from Koch brothers policies .......wealth concentrated in the top 1 percent is what will benefit you. NOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't benefit from those either.  But you are missing the point.  Why should I as an IL taxpayer have to pay for a teacher or a garbage truck driver to retire at 50 at full salary?
> 
> What's the rationalization for that?  Why is that even a good policy?
Click to expand...

There are anecdotal cases  that may reflect abuses of the system sure ...you are taking those and saying "all union members abuse the system"...just like you said "the Unions threatened to gut Walker's wife" ...that did not happen...some nut or extremist may have made threats ...just like GOP officials have called for lynchings...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

JoeB131 said:


> Nat, I think you need to learn how to use the quote feature.


You need to learn to think critically ..


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You only benefit from Koch brothers policies .......wealth concentrated in the top 1 percent is what will benefit you. NOT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't benefit from those either.  But you are missing the point.  Why should I as an IL taxpayer have to pay for a teacher or a garbage truck driver to retire at 50 at full salary?
> 
> What's the rationalization for that?  Why is that even a good policy?
Click to expand...


I don't think that many of us on the left would argue that there are no excesses regarding unions.....BUT, you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.......The obvious fact is that Walker is a Koch "hired gun" to do their greedy biddings to rid Wisconsin of collective bargaining...For the Koch brothers it isn't really any longer about just money, but the POWER that their current wealth can garner in buying themselves all of the political whores they may want.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

nat4900 said:


> I don't think that many of us on the left would argue that there are no excesses regarding unions.....BUT, you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.......The obvious fact is that Walker is a Koch "hired gun" to do their greedy biddings to rid Wisconsin of collective bargaining...For the Koch brothers it isn't really any longer about just money, but the POWER that their current wealth can garner in buying themselves all of the political whores they may want.




Joeb is a born again Right wing nut  who claims to be a "liberal" he works in manufacturing so he has benefited from Unions fighting for better wages , working conditions , health care...but Joeb was born again as a GOP stooge who blames Unions for everything and supports Gov Walker being* literally* at the beck and call of vested powerful interests like the Koch brothers...he has no problems with Walker being a house servant of the Koch brothers ...Joeb also declar3ed that"most people are cool with prisoners in US jail being abused"...he busted out with that when I pointed out a Florida prisoner had been boiled alive by correctional officers  in Fl....


----------



## nat4900

TyroneSlothrop said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that many of us on the left would argue that there are no excesses regarding unions.....BUT, you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.......The obvious fact is that Walker is a Koch "hired gun" to do their greedy biddings to rid Wisconsin of collective bargaining...For the Koch brothers it isn't really any longer about just money, but the POWER that their current wealth can garner in buying themselves all of the political whores they may want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb is a born again Right wing nut  who claims to be a "liberal" he works in manufacturing so he has benefited from Unions fighting for better wages , working conditions , health care...but Joeb was born again as a GOP stooge who blames Unions for everything and supports Gov Walker being* literally* at the beck and call of vested powerful interests like the Koch brothers...he has no problems with Walker being a house servant of the Koch brothers ...Joeb also declar3ed that"most people are cool with prisoners in US jail being abused"...he busted out with that when I pointed out a Florida prisoner had been boiled alive by correctional officers  in Fl....
Click to expand...


What most common right wingers need to realize is that they too will NOT benefit from a plutocratic or oligarchical type of governmental and economic destiny.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> They didnt.
> 
> 
> 
> A gang of heavily financed lying bastards smeared Kerry and whay they did is now known as "Swiftboating"... when one says such and such is getting "swiftboated" it means slandered....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what did these guys say, specifically, that wasn't true?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> No, the real problem was that Kerry didn't own up to what he did when he was hanging with Jane Fonda.
Click to expand...

WTF? How about the swiftboat vet who said Kerry didn't earn his Bronze Star for heroism under fire because he was there and they weren't under fire? Turned out, that very same vet also earned a Bronze Star for valor under fire for that same event.


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> Iran has had nuclear technology since the 1970s.  We gave it to them (when a Republican was president, in fact).  They are members of the NNPT.  And as along as they comply with that treaty, they have every right to the technology.  That is entirely what this is about.



They are not in compliance, and have never been in compliance.


----------



## rhodescholar

cnm said:


> And all because the US overthrew its demoratically elected government and installed a puppet regime. Those Iranians have no sense of proportion.



Let's turn off the kgb/iran talking points, the US did not "overthrow" anyone or anything, so lets keep the nonsense out of the thread.


----------



## rhodescholar

Wry Catcher said:


> Technically thousands of Americans died and many more suffered life long wounds after his remarks.  I suppose I need to make a technical adjustment and change my opinion to the dull normal - say 86 to 88.



And how many of those americans died because of iran?  How many tons of iranian war material including EFPs and such were found in iraq?  How much more manageable and efficient would the iraq war had been had iran not gotten involved?  Why are leftists so totally non credible, whining about what the US allegedly did in 1953, but silent on iran doing 1000 times worse in iraq in 2003 forward?


----------



## rhodescholar

TyroneSlothrop said:


> So you are under the impression Republican Governance works...one State "Mississippi"



Democtatic govt achievement: IL, NY, IL, CA...all functionally bankrupt.


----------



## rhodescholar

TyroneSlothrop said:


> The official IRNA news agency on Thursday quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as calling the letter a sign of *"the collapse of political ethics and the U.S. system's internal disintegration."*



....while khameini orders another round of terrorism across the mideast, great source to quote there, dimwit.


----------



## rhodescholar

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Report: Mossad undercuts Benjamin Netanyahu, warns US .*..*
> 
> *Israeli intelligence officials have apparently come around to the same view shared by both the Obama administration as well as American spy agencies*
> 
> 
> www.jpost.com/.../Report-*Mossad*-undercuts-Netanya...
> 
> anti Semites in the Mossad



No, just politically-motivated assholes.  And that guy has been out for years.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically thousands of Americans died and many more suffered life long wounds after his remarks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thousands of Americans who were proud to fight for America. You? How do you fight for your country? By playing the tough guy/gal on an internet forum. How sad for you.
Click to expand...


I was on active duty, 1967 - 1969, before you were born and spent over thirty years in a LE career.  Raised two sons, both older and more civilized than you, and coached baseball, basketball and volunteered at their schools.   And you, what have you done and what real life experiences do you have?


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, i just don't have a high tolerance for political bullshit.  Obama is trying to get an agreement to burnish what *even Democrat are starting to consider a failed presidency. * (and, yes, i voted for Obama in 2012, and would again, given the alternative).   forget the fact that it will be a largely meaningless agreement that will do nothing to stop the Iranians from getting a bomb. Forget it will never get ratified by this or any other Congress.  Obama got him an agreement, and that's the important thing.
> 
> He'll have a picture of himself shaking hands with the representatives of the Ayatollahs. Meanwhile the Ayatollahs will take over Iraq and Yemen and make progress towards a bomb.
> 
> Probably not much we can - or even should - do about that.



Uhm, no.


----------



## rhodescholar

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Speaking of Joeb131 and GOP idiocy *
> 
> *New York Times Editorial: Republican Idiocy on Iran*



Quoting the NYT editorial board one really has to be a fucking idiot.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has had nuclear technology since the 1970s.  We gave it to them (when a Republican was president, in fact).  They are members of the NNPT.  And as along as they comply with that treaty, they have every right to the technology.  That is entirely what this is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not in compliance, and have never been in compliance.
Click to expand...


It is not true that they have never been in compliance.  Their nuclear program dates back to the days of the Shaw.  Before they started enriching uranium, they were in compliance.  No, they are not currently in compliance.  That is the issue that the UN Security Council members, including the U.S., are trying to address with these negotiations.


----------



## Wry Catcher

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> They didnt.
> 
> 
> 
> A gang of heavily financed lying bastards smeared Kerry and whay they did is now known as "Swiftboating"... when one says such and such is getting "swiftboated" it means slandered....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what did these guys say, specifically, that wasn't true?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> No, the real problem was that Kerry didn't own up to what he did when he was hanging with Jane Fonda.
Click to expand...


Q.  how old are you?  It is important to know, because the late 1960's and early 1970's cannot be judged from afar.  The Vietnam War changed America rapidly, from happy days and sock hops to a polarized society faced with war live on TV every evening. 

A nation watching the death count rise and two presidents - one Democrat and one Republican - assuring us that there was light at the end of the tunnel, and the first domino would not fall.  A load of crap bought once again by a Congress giving us the Iraq Fiasco, the consequences we will live with until the last wounded warrior passes on.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Iceweasel said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's
> Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).
> 
> 
> 
> ...which proves that you are still clueless after many years.
Click to expand...


LOL as usual, nothing of substance and the usual ad hominem.


----------



## Wry Catcher

rhodescholar said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> And all because the US overthrew its demoratically elected government and installed a puppet regime. Those Iranians have no sense of proportion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's turn off the kgb/iran talking points, the US did not "overthrow" anyone or anything, so lets keep the nonsense out of the thread.
Click to expand...


Wow, It's time you read a little history.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wry Catcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's
> Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).
> 
> 
> 
> ...which proves that you are still clueless after many years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL as usual, nothing of substance and the usual ad hominem.
Click to expand...

You proved that you were clueless, all I did was point it out.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

rhodescholar said:


> Quoting the NYT editorial board one really has to be a fucking idiot.



What are your credential doodoo brains ?
You post as though stupidity was a virtue...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

hey JoeB131...U R pathetic


----------



## Wry Catcher

Iceweasel said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's
> Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).
> 
> 
> 
> ...which proves that you are still clueless after many years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL as usual, nothing of substance and the usual ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved that you were clueless, all I did was point it out.
Click to expand...


No you did not.  To do so you would have needed to explain why I was wrong, something you are incapable of doing.  Why not find another hobby, one in which you might have some competence?  You do a good job of parroting right wing propaganda, but therein is the full measure of your ability (so to speak).


----------



## Wry Catcher

TyroneSlothrop said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting the NYT editorial board one really has to be a fucking idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are your credential doodoo brains ?
> You post as though stupidity was a virtue...
Click to expand...


Funny and true.  Roads Scholar is bit dusty as too facts.


----------



## Wry Catcher

TyroneSlothrop said:


> hey JoeB131...U R pathetic



LOL and soooo true.


----------



## Iceweasel

Wry Catcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's
> Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).
> 
> 
> 
> ...which proves that you are still clueless after many years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL as usual, nothing of substance and the usual ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved that you were clueless, all I did was point it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you did not.  To do so you would have needed to explain why I was wrong, something you are incapable of doing.  Why not find another hobby, one in which you might have some competence?  You do a good job of parroting right wing propaganda, but therein is the full measure of your ability (so to speak).
Click to expand...

You smary stupid asshole. You threw out the mission accomplished line like the 20 year of comedy skit that it was. You are fucking clueless and too ignorant about American politics to be here pontificating. Don't know it was General Franks idea and I think the head of the middle east operations knew more about it than some retard that tries to impress people on the internet by throwing out tired worn out leftist talking points and accusing others to hide his tactics. 

Don't lecture others about knowledge, you have NONE.


----------



## rhodescholar

Wry Catcher said:


> Wow, It's time you read a little history.



Actually idiot, I know it better than anyone on this forum.  The US gave iranians some money to overthrow a PM who had tried to take the powers of the shah, according to the iranian constitution.  Mossadegh was never elected, he was appointed by the shah to his position.  Go read the de-classified CIA papers - all of them.  I have, did you?  The US did not overthrow any government, it is a KGB lie, and low information obama voters like you love to lap it up.


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> It is not true that they have never been in compliance.  Their nuclear program dates back to the days of the Shaw.  Before they started enriching uranium, they were in compliance.  No, they are not currently in compliance.  That is the issue that the UN Security Council members, including the U.S., are trying to address with these negotiations.



For at least 15 - 20 years they have not been in compliance.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not true that they have never been in compliance.  Their nuclear program dates back to the days of the Shaw.  Before they started enriching uranium, they were in compliance.  No, they are not currently in compliance.  That is the issue that the UN Security Council members, including the U.S., are trying to address with these negotiations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For at least 15 - 20 years they have not been in compliance.
Click to expand...


They have been out of compliance since 2002.


----------



## nat4900

rhodescholar said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, It's time you read a little history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually idiot, I know it better than anyone on this forum.  The US gave iranians some money to overthrow a PM who had tried to take the powers of the shah, according to the iranian constitution.  Mossadegh was never elected, he was appointed by the shah to his position.  Go read the de-classified CIA papers - all of them.  I have, did you?  The US did not overthrow any government, it is a KGB lie, and low information obama voters like you love to lap it up.
Click to expand...




Speaking of IDIOTS, you are relying on a CIA account....the same CIA that DID overthrow Mossadegh because the guy wanted a larger portion of the oil revenue to remain in Iranian hands....British Petrolium and other big oil companies dictated to the CIA to get rid of the upstart so that they could continue to rip off the Iranians......

But, what really pissed off Iran, was the brutal secret service under the Shah (while he was whoring all over Europe) who tortured and killed ANY dissenter.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

* “Tehran Tom” Cotton’s Iran Blunder Has Made Him the New Hanoi Jane *

As the saying goes, stupidity is its own reward, and Republican Senator Tom Cotton has certainly proven the truth of that anonymous proverb…


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

cnm said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they try to make "deals" with Iran that allows them to have any type of nuclear power, then I would hope so.  This is just . . . pure madness.
> 
> 
> 
> The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.
Click to expand...


LOL!  Where's that?    And please, be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Iceweasel said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but... he didn't say, "Major combat operations in Iraq are over" (Bush's
> Mission Accomplished Speech on May 1, 2003).
> 
> 
> 
> ...which proves that you are still clueless after many years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL as usual, nothing of substance and the usual ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved that you were clueless, all I did was point it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you did not.  To do so you would have needed to explain why I was wrong, something you are incapable of doing.  Why not find another hobby, one in which you might have some competence?  You do a good job of parroting right wing propaganda, but therein is the full measure of your ability (so to speak).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smary stupid asshole. You threw out the mission accomplished line like the 20 year of comedy skit that it was. You are fucking clueless and too ignorant about American politics to be here pontificating. Don't know it was General Franks idea and I think the head of the middle east operations knew more about it than some retard that tries to impress people on the internet by throwing out tired worn out leftist talking points and accusing others to hide his tactics.
> 
> Don't lecture others about knowledge, you have NONE.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my points.  It is called the Mission Accomplished Speech, and Bush did say what I posted and below is a link to evidence:

"Defense.gov News Article President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq"

*President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq*
By Kathleen T. Rhem
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 – Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.

You are now free to cut and run, the usual tactic of right wing loudmouths who don't have a clue.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

nat4900 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, It's time you read a little history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually idiot, I know it better than anyone on this forum.  The US gave iranians some money to overthrow a PM who had tried to take the powers of the shah, according to the iranian constitution.  Mossadegh was never elected, he was appointed by the shah to his position.  Go read the de-classified CIA papers - all of them.  I have, did you?  The US did not overthrow any government, it is a KGB lie, and low information obama voters like you love to lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of IDIOTS, you are relying on a CIA account....the same CIA that DID overthrow Mossadegh because the guy wanted a larger portion of the oil revenue to remain in Iranian hands....British Petrolium and other big oil companies dictated to the CIA to get rid of the upstart so that they could continue to rip off the Iranians......
> 
> But, what really pissed off Iran, was the brutal secret service under the Shah (while he was whoring all over Europe) who tortured and killed ANY dissenter.
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!  So you're saying that BP was running the CIA?

Well, sure... I mean that makes perfect sense, 'big corporation, therefore JEWS!'    

Oh you're all over this one... .


----------



## Statistikhengst

Neotrotsky said:


> Democrat's
> new friends



They are not the Democrats' friends.

Are you really THAT stupid?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> Will Tehran Tommy make a run for president?



There's always room in the GOP clown-car for one more.


----------



## Wry Catcher

rhodescholar said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, It's time you read a little history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually idiot, I know it better than anyone on this forum.  The US gave iranians some money to overthrow a PM who had tried to take the powers of the shah, according to the iranian constitution.  Mossadegh was never elected, he was appointed by the shah to his position.  Go read the de-classified CIA papers - all of them.  I have, did you?  The US did not overthrow any government, it is a KGB lie, and low information obama voters like you love to lap it up.
Click to expand...


"Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S. and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms"


----------



## Stephanie

SNIP:
BOLTON: Forget GOP letter! We SHOULD be talking about how Obama’s Iran deal is an ACT OF SURRENDER

ALL OF IT HERE:

Read more: http://therightscoop.com/bolton-forget-gop-letter-we-should-be-talking-about-how-obamas-iran-deal-is-an-act-of-surrender/#ixzz3UBaUawUM


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...which proves that you are still clueless after many years.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL as usual, nothing of substance and the usual ad hominem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You proved that you were clueless, all I did was point it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you did not.  To do so you would have needed to explain why I was wrong, something you are incapable of doing.  Why not find another hobby, one in which you might have some competence?  You do a good job of parroting right wing propaganda, but therein is the full measure of your ability (so to speak).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smary stupid asshole. You threw out the mission accomplished line like the 20 year of comedy skit that it was. You are fucking clueless and too ignorant about American politics to be here pontificating. Don't know it was General Franks idea and I think the head of the middle east operations knew more about it than some retard that tries to impress people on the internet by throwing out tired worn out leftist talking points and accusing others to hide his tactics.
> 
> Don't lecture others about knowledge, you have NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my points.  It is called the Mission Accomplished Speech, and Bush did say what I posted and below is a link to evidence:
> 
> "Defense.gov News Article President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq"
> 
> *President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq*
> By Kathleen T. Rhem
> American Forces Press Service
> 
> WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 – Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
> 
> You are now free to cut and run, the usual tactic of right wing loudmouths who don't have a clue.
Click to expand...


The Mission was Accomplished... and Combat operations were over.  THEN the Ideological Left kicked in, ignited a media frenzy over a naked Islamic pyramid and the insuregency of Al Qaeda in Iraq began.  

Which required that anti-insurgency tactics be instituted; which are wholly distinct from 'Combat Operations' relative to the invasion of Iraq and the first to dismantle the Iraqi Islamic-Socialist government.  

But, in fairness to you, as a relativist, there is_ no way_ you could have known that.


----------



## Statistikhengst

TemplarKormac said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.
> 
> Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He wouldn't have done it had there not been an election to win.
Click to expand...



He was killed on 02 May 2011.
There was no election going on at that time.

Your ignorance is fun to watch, potato-chipper.


----------



## Lakhota

47 is a very unlucky number for Republicans.  Ask Mitt...


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> They are not in compliance, and have never been in compliance.


That's only fair, none of the signatory nuclear powers are in compliance either.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL as usual, nothing of substance and the usual ad hominem.
> 
> 
> 
> You proved that you were clueless, all I did was point it out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you did not.  To do so you would have needed to explain why I was wrong, something you are incapable of doing.  Why not find another hobby, one in which you might have some competence?  You do a good job of parroting right wing propaganda, but therein is the full measure of your ability (so to speak).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smary stupid asshole. You threw out the mission accomplished line like the 20 year of comedy skit that it was. You are fucking clueless and too ignorant about American politics to be here pontificating. Don't know it was General Franks idea and I think the head of the middle east operations knew more about it than some retard that tries to impress people on the internet by throwing out tired worn out leftist talking points and accusing others to hide his tactics.
> 
> Don't lecture others about knowledge, you have NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my points.  It is called the Mission Accomplished Speech, and Bush did say what I posted and below is a link to evidence:
> 
> "Defense.gov News Article President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq"
> 
> *President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq*
> By Kathleen T. Rhem
> American Forces Press Service
> 
> WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 – Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
> 
> You are now free to cut and run, the usual tactic of right wing loudmouths who don't have a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mission was Accomplished... and Combat operations were over.  THEN the Ideological Left kicked in, ignited a media frenzy over a naked Islamic pyramid and the insuregency of Al Qaeda in Iraq began.
> 
> Which required that anti-insurgency tactics be instituted; which are wholly distinct from 'Combat Operations' relative to the invasion of Iraq and the first to dismantle the Iraqi Islamic-Socialist government.
> 
> But, in fairness to you, as a relativist, there is_ no way_ you could have known that.
Click to expand...


Another spin that won't turn.  As a *realist* I can walk in any US Cemetery and read the names of those who fell after Major Combat Operations _succeeded_.   Bush's Crusade was an abject failure, measured by its cost in blood and treasure, and the current state of world affairs.  Point fingers all you please, the rewrite of history is all you and your kind have; don't expect anyone to buy your bull shit.


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> Let's turn off the kgb/iran talking points, the US did not "overthrow" anyone or anything, so lets keep the nonsense out of the thread.



_*Oil nationalization and the 1953 coup*

https://en.wikipedia.org

Under the direction of Kermit Roosevelt, Jr., a senior Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer and grandson of former U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, the American CIA and British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) funded and led a covert operation to depose Mossaddegh with the help of military forces disloyal to the democratically elected government.. _​


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> [...]  Why are leftists so totally non credible, whining about what the US allegedly did in 1953, but silent on iran doing 1000 times worse in iraq in 2003 forward?


I bet some people warned of the consequences of deposing Saddam. What did they know, eh?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You proved that you were clueless, all I did was point it out.
> 
> 
> 
> No you did not.  To do so you would have needed to explain why I was wrong, something you are incapable of doing.  Why not find another hobby, one in which you might have some competence?  You do a good job of parroting right wing propaganda, but therein is the full measure of your ability (so to speak).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You smary stupid asshole. You threw out the mission accomplished line like the 20 year of comedy skit that it was. You are fucking clueless and too ignorant about American politics to be here pontificating. Don't know it was General Franks idea and I think the head of the middle east operations knew more about it than some retard that tries to impress people on the internet by throwing out tired worn out leftist talking points and accusing others to hide his tactics.
> 
> Don't lecture others about knowledge, you have NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my points.  It is called the Mission Accomplished Speech, and Bush did say what I posted and below is a link to evidence:
> 
> "Defense.gov News Article President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq"
> 
> *President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq*
> By Kathleen T. Rhem
> American Forces Press Service
> 
> WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 – Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
> 
> You are now free to cut and run, the usual tactic of right wing loudmouths who don't have a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mission was Accomplished... and Combat operations were over.  THEN the Ideological Left kicked in, ignited a media frenzy over a naked Islamic pyramid and the insuregency of Al Qaeda in Iraq began.
> 
> Which required that anti-insurgency tactics be instituted; which are wholly distinct from 'Combat Operations' relative to the invasion of Iraq and the first to dismantle the Iraqi Islamic-Socialist government.
> 
> But, in fairness to you, as a relativist, there is_ no way_ you could have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another spin that won't turn.  As a *realist* I can walk in any US Cemetery and read the names of those who fell after Major Combat Operations '_succeeded_'.   Bush's Crusade was an abject failure, measured by its cost in blood and treasure, and the current state of world affairs.  Point fingers all you please, the rewrite of history is all you and you kind have, but don't expect anyone to buy your bull shit.
Click to expand...


(The Reader should note that the use of 'spin' is a substitution for 'truth', which as you know, is a concept with which the lowly Relativists are not familiar.  So they use phrasing which better fits within the Relativist bent, wherein 'truth' is whatever the individual 'feels' it is... 'relative' or 'subject' to their own personal needs, wants and desires... . 

Suffice it to say that casualties incurred in the wake of major combat operations closing, in no way determines that major combat, relevant to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Iraqi-Islamic/Socialist Government, had closed.)

_Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

cnm said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...]  Why are leftists so totally non credible, whining about what the US allegedly did in 1953, but silent on iran doing 1000 times worse in iraq in 2003 forward?
> 
> 
> 
> I bet some people warned of the consequences of deposing Saddam. What did they know, eh?
Click to expand...


Well you can't hide a Saddam supporter!  

And what a shocker that such is nearly exclusively found in the ranks of the Ideological LEFT!  

LOL!  Yet another demonstration of Relativism: ON PARADE!


----------



## cnm

orogenicman said:


> It is not true that they have never been in compliance.  Their nuclear program dates back to the days of the Shaw.  Before they started enriching uranium, they were in compliance.  No, they are not currently in compliance.  That is the issue that the UN Security Council members, including the U.S., are trying to address with these negotiations.


As a matter of interest, in what area is Iran non-compliant with the NNPT?


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> Actually idiot, I know it better than anyone on this forum.  The US gave iranians some money to overthrow a PM who had tried to take the powers of the shah, according to the iranian constitution.  Mossadegh was never elected, he was appointed by the shah to his position.  Go read the de-classified CIA papers - all of them.  I have, did you?  The US did not overthrow any government, it is a KGB lie, and low information obama voters like you love to lap it up.


Fair point, Mosaddegh was appointed, it was his government that was elected.

_*Oil nationalization and the 1953 coup*

https://en.wikipedia.org

Under the leadership of Mossaddegh's democratically elected nationalist movement, the Iranian parliament unanimously voted to nationalize the oil industry – thus shutting out the immensely profitable AIOC, which was a pillar of Britain's economy and provided it political clout in the region.[16]_​


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you did not.  To do so you would have needed to explain why I was wrong, something you are incapable of doing.  Why not find another hobby, one in which you might have some competence?  You do a good job of parroting right wing propaganda, but therein is the full measure of your ability (so to speak).
> 
> 
> 
> You smary stupid asshole. You threw out the mission accomplished line like the 20 year of comedy skit that it was. You are fucking clueless and too ignorant about American politics to be here pontificating. Don't know it was General Franks idea and I think the head of the middle east operations knew more about it than some retard that tries to impress people on the internet by throwing out tired worn out leftist talking points and accusing others to hide his tactics.
> 
> Don't lecture others about knowledge, you have NONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my points.  It is called the Mission Accomplished Speech, and Bush did say what I posted and below is a link to evidence:
> 
> "Defense.gov News Article President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq"
> 
> *President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq*
> By Kathleen T. Rhem
> American Forces Press Service
> 
> WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 – Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
> 
> You are now free to cut and run, the usual tactic of right wing loudmouths who don't have a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mission was Accomplished... and Combat operations were over.  THEN the Ideological Left kicked in, ignited a media frenzy over a naked Islamic pyramid and the insuregency of Al Qaeda in Iraq began.
> 
> Which required that anti-insurgency tactics be instituted; which are wholly distinct from 'Combat Operations' relative to the invasion of Iraq and the first to dismantle the Iraqi Islamic-Socialist government.
> 
> But, in fairness to you, as a relativist, there is_ no way_ you could have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another spin that won't turn.  As a *realist* I can walk in any US Cemetery and read the names of those who fell after Major Combat Operations '_succeeded_'.   Bush's Crusade was an abject failure, measured by its cost in blood and treasure, and the current state of world affairs.  Point fingers all you please, the rewrite of history is all you and you kind have, but don't expect anyone to buy your bull shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (The Reader should note that the use of 'spin' is a substitution for 'truth', which as you know, is a concept with which the lowly Relativists are not familiar.  So they use phrasing which better fits within the Relativist bent, wherein 'truth' is whatever the individual 'feels' it is... 'relative' or 'subject' to their own personal needs, wants and desires... .
> 
> Suffice it to say that casualties incurred in the wake of major combat operations closing, in no way determines that major combat, relevant to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Iraqi-Islamic/Socialist Government, had closed.)
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
Click to expand...


The Jury is out:  is keys

a.  a liar

b.  a narcissist

c.  a liar and a narcissist

d.  a liar, a narcissist and challenged by reality


----------



## cnm

orogenicman said:


> They have been out of compliance since 2002.


I'd still like to know where this matter of non-compliance is centred.

_*Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance 
with International Obligations 
*
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf

In 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began investigating allegations thatIran had conducted clandestine nuclear activities. Ultimately, the agency reported that some of these activities had violated Tehran’s IAEA safeguards agreement. The IAEA has not stated definitively that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons, but has also not yet been able to conclude that the country’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. The IAEA Board of Governors referred the matter to the U.N. Security Council in February 2006. Since then, the council has adopted six resolutions, the most recent of which (Resolution 1929) was adopted in June 2010_​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Wry Catcher said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> You smary stupid asshole. You threw out the mission accomplished line like the 20 year of comedy skit that it was. You are fucking clueless and too ignorant about American politics to be here pontificating. Don't know it was General Franks idea and I think the head of the middle east operations knew more about it than some retard that tries to impress people on the internet by throwing out tired worn out leftist talking points and accusing others to hide his tactics.
> 
> Don't lecture others about knowledge, you have NONE.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my points.  It is called the Mission Accomplished Speech, and Bush did say what I posted and below is a link to evidence:
> 
> "Defense.gov News Article President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq"
> 
> *President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq*
> By Kathleen T. Rhem
> American Forces Press Service
> 
> WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 – Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
> 
> You are now free to cut and run, the usual tactic of right wing loudmouths who don't have a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mission was Accomplished... and Combat operations were over.  THEN the Ideological Left kicked in, ignited a media frenzy over a naked Islamic pyramid and the insuregency of Al Qaeda in Iraq began.
> 
> Which required that anti-insurgency tactics be instituted; which are wholly distinct from 'Combat Operations' relative to the invasion of Iraq and the first to dismantle the Iraqi Islamic-Socialist government.
> 
> But, in fairness to you, as a relativist, there is_ no way_ you could have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another spin that won't turn.  As a *realist* I can walk in any US Cemetery and read the names of those who fell after Major Combat Operations '_succeeded_'.   Bush's Crusade was an abject failure, measured by its cost in blood and treasure, and the current state of world affairs.  Point fingers all you please, the rewrite of history is all you and you kind have, but don't expect anyone to buy your bull shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (The Reader should note that the use of 'spin' is a substitution for 'truth', which as you know, is a concept with which the lowly Relativists are not familiar.  So they use phrasing which better fits within the Relativist bent, wherein 'truth' is whatever the individual 'feels' it is... 'relative' or 'subject' to their own personal needs, wants and desires... .
> 
> Suffice it to say that casualties incurred in the wake of major combat operations closing, in no way determines that major combat, relevant to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Iraqi-Islamic/Socialist Government, had closed.)
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jury is out:  is keys
> 
> a.  a liar
> 
> b.  a narcissist
> 
> c.  a liar and a narcissist
> 
> d.  a liar, a narcissist and challenged by reality
Click to expand...


LOL!  A desperate grope for popularity... 


(The Reader should recognize this as the fallacious appeal, wherein the popularity of a given position is used to determine the validity of that position.  Such is axiomatic in Relativism, despite in reality, there being absolutely no potential correlation between popularity and validity.  

Yes, it's all quite sad, but this is what happens when a culture allows the mentally disordered to freely associate with the general population.)


----------



## cnm

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Where's that?    And please, be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.
Click to expand...

Looking under your beds for 'Radical Islamists' among the dust bunnies.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

cnm said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have been out of compliance since 2002.
> 
> 
> 
> I'd still like to know where this matter of non-compliance is centred.
> 
> _*Iran’s Nuclear Program: Tehran’s Compliance
> with International Obligations
> *
> http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R40094.pdf
> 
> In 2002, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began investigating allegations thatIran had conducted clandestine nuclear activities. Ultimately, the agency reported that some of these activities had violated Tehran’s IAEA safeguards agreement. The IAEA has not stated definitively that Iran has pursued nuclear weapons, but has also not yet been able to conclude that the country’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. The IAEA Board of Governors referred the matter to the U.N. Security Council in February 2006. Since then, the council has adopted six resolutions, the most recent of which (Resolution 1929) was adopted in June 2010_​
Click to expand...



"... _has also not yet been able to conclude that the country’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes..."

(That means that there is no evidence which a reasonably objective individual tasked with determining such, can say with any degree of certainty that such is the case... thus, it falls to reasonable actors to prevent such, at least where the goal is to avoid nuclear evaporation of those who have been attacked consistently by such for the last 30 odd years or better.)_


----------



## cnm

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Well you can't hide a Saddam supporter!
> 
> And what a shocker that such is nearly exclusively found in the ranks of the Ideological LEFT!
> 
> LOL!  Yet another demonstration of Relativism: ON PARADE!


You're the one squealing that Iran has been enabled.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my points.  It is called the Mission Accomplished Speech, and Bush did say what I posted and below is a link to evidence:
> 
> "Defense.gov News Article President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq"
> 
> *President Bush Proclaims End to Major Combat Ops in Iraq*
> By Kathleen T. Rhem
> American Forces Press Service
> 
> WASHINGTON, May 1, 2003 – Major combat operations in Iraq are over, and America and her allies have prevailed, President Bush said this evening on the flight deck of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.
> 
> You are now free to cut and run, the usual tactic of right wing loudmouths who don't have a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Mission was Accomplished... and Combat operations were over.  THEN the Ideological Left kicked in, ignited a media frenzy over a naked Islamic pyramid and the insuregency of Al Qaeda in Iraq began.
> 
> Which required that anti-insurgency tactics be instituted; which are wholly distinct from 'Combat Operations' relative to the invasion of Iraq and the first to dismantle the Iraqi Islamic-Socialist government.
> 
> But, in fairness to you, as a relativist, there is_ no way_ you could have known that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another spin that won't turn.  As a *realist* I can walk in any US Cemetery and read the names of those who fell after Major Combat Operations '_succeeded_'.   Bush's Crusade was an abject failure, measured by its cost in blood and treasure, and the current state of world affairs.  Point fingers all you please, the rewrite of history is all you and you kind have, but don't expect anyone to buy your bull shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (The Reader should note that the use of 'spin' is a substitution for 'truth', which as you know, is a concept with which the lowly Relativists are not familiar.  So they use phrasing which better fits within the Relativist bent, wherein 'truth' is whatever the individual 'feels' it is... 'relative' or 'subject' to their own personal needs, wants and desires... .
> 
> Suffice it to say that casualties incurred in the wake of major combat operations closing, in no way determines that major combat, relevant to the invasion of Iraq and the removal of the Iraqi-Islamic/Socialist Government, had closed.)
> 
> _Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Jury is out:  is keys
> 
> a.  a liar
> 
> b.  a narcissist
> 
> c.  a liar and a narcissist
> 
> d.  a liar, a narcissist and challenged by reality
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  A desperate grope for popularity...
> 
> 
> (The Reader should recognize this as the fallacious appeal, wherein the popularity of a given position is used to determine the validity of that position.  Such is axiomatic in Relativism, despite in reality, there being absolutely no potential correlation between popularity and validity.
> 
> Yes, it's all quite sad, but this is what happens when a culture allows the mentally disordered to freely associate with the general population.)
Click to expand...


Well now, I need to add another choice to the list, based on this phrase, "this is what happens when a culture allows the mentally disordered to freely associate with the general population".  Thus

f.  a liar, a narcissist, challenged by reality and a NAZI.


----------



## cnm

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> _(That means that there is no evidence which a reasonably objective individual tasked with determining such, can say with any degree of certainty that such is the case... thus, it falls to reasonable actors to prevent such, at least where the goal is to avoid nuclear evaporation of those who have been attacked consistently by such for the last 30 odd years or better.)_


So Iran can't prove a negative? I wonder where we've seen that situation in the last decade or so...


----------



## cnm

I find it interesting my assertion that all the signatory nuclear powers are in violation of the NNPT went unchallenged. I guess everyone accepts that is the case and wants no further light shone on the signatory nuclear powers' hypocrisy.


----------



## nat4900

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, It's time you read a little history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually idiot, I know it better than anyone on this forum.  The US gave iranians some money to overthrow a PM who had tried to take the powers of the shah, according to the iranian constitution.  Mossadegh was never elected, he was appointed by the shah to his position.  Go read the de-classified CIA papers - all of them.  I have, did you?  The US did not overthrow any government, it is a KGB lie, and low information obama voters like you love to lap it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of IDIOTS, you are relying on a CIA account....the same CIA that DID overthrow Mossadegh because the guy wanted a larger portion of the oil revenue to remain in Iranian hands....British Petrolium and other big oil companies dictated to the CIA to get rid of the upstart so that they could continue to rip off the Iranians......
> 
> But, what really pissed off Iran, was the brutal secret service under the Shah (while he was whoring all over Europe) who tortured and killed ANY dissenter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!  So you're saying that BP was running the CIA?
> 
> Well, sure... I mean that makes perfect sense, 'big corporation, therefore JEWS!'
> 
> Oh you're all over this one... .
Click to expand...



Not an easy job educating the right wing nutjobs whose only education comes from Bill O'Really.......bit, here goes:

 One of the best known covert actions of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was its role in the 1953 overthrow of the Iranian government headed by Mohammed Mossadegh and the subsequent installation of the Shah in to power. While it is true that the coup was successful in large part due to CIA money, materials and strategy, it is also true that the CIA did not act alone. To the contrary, the British plotted the coup and did not propose making the overthrow a joint venture with the CIA until a year after the government began discussions on this prospect.


----------



## nat4900

Points to ponder:

Iran has a HUGE army, an air force, a navy, and Persians are known as among the fiercest of fighters...Further, Iran is three times the size of Iraq who, when Bush-baby and company decided to invade, was divided into 3 parts (the no-fly zones) and was weakened by Bush-daddy and company.

Bombing Iran would only set it's nuclear ambitions back by onw or two years at most...spawning rabid hatred toward the US by virtually all the billions of Muslims (except, of course, the corrupt Saudis)....and, equally, of course, pleasing the tail (Israel) who loves to get us (the dog) to do its bidding.


----------



## bendog

nat4900 said:


> Points to ponder:
> 
> Iran has a HUGE army, an air force, a navy, and Persians are known as among the fiercest of fighters...Further, Iran is three times the size of Iraq who, when Bush-baby and company decided to invade, was divided into 3 parts (the no-fly zones) and was weakened by Bush-daddy and company.
> 
> Bombing Iran would only set it's nuclear ambitions back by onw or two years at most...spawning rabid hatred toward the US by virtually all the billions of Muslims (except, of course, the corrupt Saudis)....and, equally, of course, pleasing the tail (Israel) who loves to get us (the dog) to do its bidding.


We do NOT want to bomb those folks, and those pushing for it are reactionaries.  The biggest reason for not wanting Iran to have a device is that it would spawn proliferation in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and Egypt, which would come even closer to putting devices in the hands of really crazy people, who might think millions of deaths an easy trade off for doing the will of Allah, as they interpret Allah's will. 

The neocons, Israel firsters and reactionaries don't want to accept it, but the reality is Iran would obtain security against an outside attack (such as we launched in Iraq) by just being "close enough" to completing a device.  It's really in their geopolitical interests to be seen by the muslim world as the responsible party.


----------



## Dot Com

Looks like that Mexican Republican is trying to curry favor w/ the eXtreme rw slavish base as well: Rubio Would Absolutely Send Another Letter To Iran - NBC News


----------



## Contumacious

nat4900 said:


> *, pleasing the tail (Israel) who loves to get us (the dog) to do its bidding.*





Bullshit.

It is the law, it is our honor our responsibility for the Americans to take bullets for the "chosen ones" , ie, the zionuts.


.


----------



## BluesLegend

You libs sure have short memories. Hillary Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran and Joe Biden called Obama "naïve" for his ideas on dealing with Iran. The GOP sent Iran a letter vs a threat to obliterate them


----------



## Dot Com

Both parties work for the same people so it would not surprise me in the least if this were contrived beforehand.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Speaking of IDIOTS, you are relying on a CIA account....



Yes idiot, because their de-classified documents detail EXACTLY what occurred.  How come idiot leftists scream in support about the accuracy of the 2007 NIE report that iran is not building nuclear weapons, but then other clandestine documents that don't fit their agenda are always false?



> the same CIA that DID overthrow Mossadegh



IRANIANS removed mossadegh, not a single american was physically there.  Other than writing checks and printing posters, the US did not do a single thing.

Fucking asshole obama is doing more than that in the current israeli elections, and I don't see you or any of the other leftist trash complaining about it.



> But, what really pissed off Iran, was the brutal secret service under the Shah (while he was whoring all over Europe) who tortured and killed ANY dissenter.



The shah only dealt with those seeking political power, and was a cream puff compared to the monstrous current regime, who runs one of the world's largest gulag systems.  Until leftist trash starts taking iran to task for that and all of the heinous acts they have done/are doing, they cannot utter a fucking word about the shah.


----------



## nat4900

BluesLegend said:


> You libs sure have short memories. Hillary Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran and Joe Biden called Obama "naïve" for his ideas on dealing with Iran. The GOP sent Iran a letter vs a threat to obliterate them



Unlike you right wing dingbats, we readily admit that many democrats make tons of mistakes when speaking off-the-cuff.....However, NO OTHER PARTY, like the tea-baggers known as the senate GOPers has ever had the utter stupidity to send a seditious letter to those we are trying to reach a worthwhile agreement......and all this, to please their rich donors and to show their rabid hatred of Obama as a "badge-of-courage."


----------



## rhodescholar

Wry Catcher said:


> "Mohammad Reza Pahlavi came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father Reza Shah. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized under the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh before a U.S. and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms"



Instead of quoting nonsense to make up for your lack of historical knowledge, go do some real research - you'd learn that it was the SHAH WHO APPOINTED MOSSADEGH AS PM, in accordance with his role under the iranian constitution.


----------



## nat4900

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of IDIOTS, you are relying on a CIA account....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes idiot, because their de-classified documents detail EXACTLY what occurred.  How come idiot leftists scream in support about the accuracy of the 2007 NIE report that iran is not building nuclear weapons, but then other clandestine documents that don't fit their agenda are always false?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the same CIA that DID overthrow Mossadegh
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IRANIANS removed mossadegh, not a single american was physically there.  Other than writing checks and printing posters, the US did not do a single thing.
> 
> Fucking asshole obama is doing more than that in the current israeli elections, and I don't see you or any of the other leftist trash complaining about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, what really pissed off Iran, was the brutal secret service under the Shah (while he was whoring all over Europe) who tortured and killed ANY dissenter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The shah only dealt with those seeking political power, and was a cream puff compared to the monstrous current regime, who runs one of the world's largest gulag systems.  Until leftist trash starts taking iran to task for that and all of the heinous acts they have done/are doing, they cannot utter a fucking word about the shah.
Click to expand...



Profane AND stupid........Are we talking about the same CIA that assured us that Iraq was ladened with WMDs????


----------



## rhodescholar

cnm said:


> I bet some people warned of the consequences of deposing Saddam. What did they know, eh?



I was against the iraq invasion, but just to see if you have any shred of credibility, would you have accepted an attack on iran instead, a country that was/is the cause of so much conflict in the mideast?


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Points to ponder:
> 
> Iran has a HUGE army, an air force, a navy, and Persians are known as among the fiercest of fighters...Further, Iran is three times the size of Iraq who, when Bush-baby and company decided to invade, was divided into 3 parts (the no-fly zones) and was weakened by Bush-daddy and company.
> 
> Bombing Iran would only set it's nuclear ambitions back by onw or two years at most...spawning rabid hatred toward the US by virtually all the billions of Muslims (except, of course, the corrupt Saudis)....and, equally, of course, pleasing the tail (Israel) who loves to get us (the dog) to do its bidding.



You're pretty clueless, iran's army is shit other the IRG, and is using airplanes from the 70s.  No one is pushing for a mass invasion or bombing campaign, we are seeking a mass bombing campaign/destruction of the government, using guided munitions and special forces in some places, thats it.  Deposal and liquidation of the regime is the goal, not an occupation, and and end to its hegemonistic/terrorism across the mideast.


----------



## rhodescholar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> "... _has also not yet been able to conclude that the country’s nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes..."
> 
> (That means that there is no evidence which a reasonably objective individual tasked with determining such, can say with any degree of certainty that such is the case... thus, it falls to reasonable actors to prevent such, at least where the goal is to avoid nuclear evaporation of those who have been attacked consistently by such for the last 30 odd years or better.)_



They are blocking inspections, refusing to allow scientists to be interviewed, and hiding facilities, how is any evidence supposed to be obtained?

The IAEA would not even have learned of parching or fordow existence had anti-regime elements not exposed them.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Profane AND stupid........Are we talking about the same CIA that assured us that Iraq was ladened with WMDs????



Clueless and an idiot - are you talking about the same CIA whose 2007 report suggesting iran had ceased building nuclear weapons was loudly embraced by idiots on the left like you?


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> I was against the iraq invasion, but just to see if you have any shred of credibility, would you have accepted an attack on iran instead, a country that was/is the cause of so much conflict in the mideast?


Of course not, don't be ridiculous. That would still be waging aggressive war, the overarching war crime of them all, as much as the invasion of Iraq was.


----------



## rhodescholar

cnm said:


> Of course not, don't be ridiculous. That would still be waging aggressive war, the overarching war crime of them all, as much as the invasion of Iraq was.



So you are totally non-credible, since iran was the aggressor and terrorist supporter, and should have been attacked.  Just admit you are against all wars, and stop pretending to be something you are not.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## nat4900

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Points to ponder:
> 
> Iran has a HUGE army, an air force, a navy, and Persians are known as among the fiercest of fighters...Further, Iran is three times the size of Iraq who, when Bush-baby and company decided to invade, was divided into 3 parts (the no-fly zones) and was weakened by Bush-daddy and company.
> 
> Bombing Iran would only set it's nuclear ambitions back by onw or two years at most...spawning rabid hatred toward the US by virtually all the billions of Muslims (except, of course, the corrupt Saudis)....and, equally, of course, pleasing the tail (Israel) who loves to get us (the dog) to do its bidding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're pretty clueless, iran's army is shit other the IRG, and is using airplanes from the 70s.  No one is pushing for a mass invasion or bombing campaign, we are seeking a mass bombing campaign/destruction of the government, using guided munitions and special forces in some places, thats it.  Deposal and liquidation of the regime is the goal, not an occupation, and and end to its hegemonistic/terrorism across the mideast.
Click to expand...



Doesn't this dingbat echo our "belowed" Rumsfeld who stated, "[I do] Not Expect Iraq To Become 'World War III' ... "The idea that it's going to be a long, long, long battle of some kind I think is silly... "Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that."


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> They are blocking inspections, refusing to allow scientists to be interviewed, and hiding facilities, how is any evidence supposed to be obtained?
> 
> The IAEA would not even have learned of parching or fordow existence had anti-regime elements not exposed them.


So what article of the _NNPT_ is Iran currently in breach of?
​*NPT Treaty*

What part of _MODEL PROTOCOL  ADDITIONAL TO THE AGREEMENT(S)
BETWEEN STATE(S) AND THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY FOR THE APPLICATION OF SAFEGUARDS _is not being implemented?

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/infcirc540c.pdf

What part of _IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols _is Iran violating?

IAEA Safeguards Overview International Atomic Energy Agency

No nuclear fuel is at Parching is there? That appears to be the only sticking point. Fordow has been declared, the IAEA cannot say Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, nor can it say Iran is currently in breach of its agreements that I can see.

After the Iraqi experienc of UNSCOM where US agents spied on Iraqi military secrets under the guise of WMD search I can't imagine any country letting a UN inspection team near a military base that has no nuclear fuel associated with it.

I note you still don't challenge my assertion that the signatory nuclear powers are themselves in blatant breach of the NNPT, quite easily shown as opposed to suspicion.
_ 
_​


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> So you are totally non-credible, since iran was the aggressor and terrorist supporter, and should have been attacked.  Just admit you are against all wars, and stop pretending to be something you are not.



You should admit you're a chickenhawk prepared to have others wage aggressive war on your behalf in contravention of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. I support countries waging wars of self defence, you support wars of aggression.


----------



## Brain357

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


I agree with the traitorous crowd.  This is just crazy.  Way to show weakness to the entire world.


----------



## nat4900

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profane AND stupid........Are we talking about the same CIA that assured us that Iraq was ladened with WMDs????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clueless and an idiot - are you talking about the same CIA whose 2007 report suggesting iran had ceased building nuclear weapons was loudly embraced by idiots on the left like you?
Click to expand...



It is evil AND stupid poster like this moron who vote for like-minded isiots who have no clue about the consequences of their actions.....Sure, we'll just "surgically" bomb-out the bad guys in Iran and all will be well in the Muslim world.

Let's say just argument sake that one of our bombers gets shot fown and the crew gets taken prisoner and paraded in the streets of Teheran.....well, then, of course its boots on the ground and MORE bombings, etc, etc., as if these clueless war-mongers have not brought us before to deaths, maiming, hatred and squandering of treasury.


----------



## Contumacious

rhodescholar said:


> *
> IRANIANS removed mossadegh, not a single american was physically there.  Other than writing checks and printing posters, the US did not do a single thing.*
> 
> .


*1953*

* "Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo."*


----------



## nat4900

Since we are a divided country anyway (a half-Black president has "helped" to deliniate the divide, it seems)....why not let just the war-mongers sign up for yet another of their blood-lust war.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Brain357

I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota

*Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:

Signatories:
Richard Shelby (Ala.)
Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
John McCain (Ariz.)
John Boozman (Ark.)
Tom Cotton (Ark.)
Cory Gardner (Colo.)
Marco Rubio (Fla.)
Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
David Perdue (Ga.)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Jim Risch (Idaho)
Mark Kirk (Ill.)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Joni Ernst (Iowa)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
Rand Paul (Ky.)
David Vitter (La.)
Bill Cassidy (La.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)
Roy Blunt (Mo.)
Steve Daines (Mont.)
Deb Fischer (Neb.)
Ben Sasse (Neb.)
Dean Heller (Nev.)
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Richard Burr (N.C.)
Thom Tillis (N.C.)
John Hoeven (N.D.)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
James Lankford (Okla.)
Pat Toomey (Pa.)
Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
John Thune (S.D.)
Mike Rounds (S.D.)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Orin Hatch (Utah)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
Ron Johnson (Wis.)
Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
John Barrasso (Wyo.)

*Did not sign:*
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Daniel Coats (Ind.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)

Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post

Is your Senator on the list?


----------



## hadit

Wow, I think someone needs a nap.


----------



## bendog

The scary part of that list is some of the people who signed that letter are people I consider(ed) rational conservatives not prone to neocolonial or reactionary views.


----------



## Brain357

Lakhota said:


> *Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*
> 
> The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:
> 
> Signatories:
> Richard Shelby (Ala.)
> Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
> Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
> John McCain (Ariz.)
> John Boozman (Ark.)
> Tom Cotton (Ark.)
> Cory Gardner (Colo.)
> Marco Rubio (Fla.)
> Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
> David Perdue (Ga.)
> Mike Crapo (Idaho)
> Jim Risch (Idaho)
> Mark Kirk (Ill.)
> Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
> Joni Ernst (Iowa)
> Pat Roberts (Kansas)
> Jerry Moran (Kansas)
> Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
> Rand Paul (Ky.)
> David Vitter (La.)
> Bill Cassidy (La.)
> Roger Wicker (Miss.)
> Roy Blunt (Mo.)
> Steve Daines (Mont.)
> Deb Fischer (Neb.)
> Ben Sasse (Neb.)
> Dean Heller (Nev.)
> Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
> Richard Burr (N.C.)
> Thom Tillis (N.C.)
> John Hoeven (N.D.)
> Rob Portman (Ohio)
> Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
> James Lankford (Okla.)
> Pat Toomey (Pa.)
> Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
> Tim Scott (S.C.)
> John Thune (S.D.)
> Mike Rounds (S.D.)
> John Cornyn (Texas)
> Ted Cruz (Texas)
> Orin Hatch (Utah)
> Mike Lee (Utah)
> Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
> Ron Johnson (Wis.)
> Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
> John Barrasso (Wyo.)
> 
> *Did not sign:*
> Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
> Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
> Daniel Coats (Ind.)
> Susan Collins (Maine)
> Thad Cochran (Miss.)
> Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
> Bob Corker (Tenn.)
> 
> Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post
> 
> Is your Senator on the list?



Yes.  He just guaranteed not getting my vote again.


----------



## Brain357

bendog said:


> The scary part of that list is some of the people who signed that letter are people I consider(ed) rational conservatives not prone to neocolonial or reactionary views.



I would have never guessed so many would do something so dumb.  I'm really scared we have these people as leaders.


----------



## Brain357

And Rand Paul was the only republican planning to run that I liked.  Not after this stunt.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*
> 
> The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:
> 
> Signatories:
> Richard Shelby (Ala.)
> Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
> Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
> John McCain (Ariz.)
> John Boozman (Ark.)
> Tom Cotton (Ark.)
> Cory Gardner (Colo.)
> Marco Rubio (Fla.)
> Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
> David Perdue (Ga.)
> Mike Crapo (Idaho)
> Jim Risch (Idaho)
> Mark Kirk (Ill.)
> Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
> Joni Ernst (Iowa)
> Pat Roberts (Kansas)
> Jerry Moran (Kansas)
> Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
> Rand Paul (Ky.)
> David Vitter (La.)
> Bill Cassidy (La.)
> Roger Wicker (Miss.)
> Roy Blunt (Mo.)
> Steve Daines (Mont.)
> Deb Fischer (Neb.)
> Ben Sasse (Neb.)
> Dean Heller (Nev.)
> Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
> Richard Burr (N.C.)
> Thom Tillis (N.C.)
> John Hoeven (N.D.)
> Rob Portman (Ohio)
> Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
> James Lankford (Okla.)
> Pat Toomey (Pa.)
> Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
> Tim Scott (S.C.)
> John Thune (S.D.)
> Mike Rounds (S.D.)
> John Cornyn (Texas)
> Ted Cruz (Texas)
> Orin Hatch (Utah)
> Mike Lee (Utah)
> Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
> Ron Johnson (Wis.)
> Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
> John Barrasso (Wyo.)
> 
> *Did not sign:*
> Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
> Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
> Daniel Coats (Ind.)
> Susan Collins (Maine)
> Thad Cochran (Miss.)
> Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
> Bob Corker (Tenn.)
> 
> Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post
> 
> Is your Senator on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He just guaranteed not getting my vote again.
Click to expand...

Both of mine are on the list and guaranteed my vote.
One from Florida has my support in future endeavors as well.


----------



## nat4900

Those senators just "kissed goodbye" their own chances of ever running for the WH....and perhaps even their re-election for that seat ...can you picture the opponents' ads?

Also, you may have noticed that other right wing governors who were ....at first....clamoring to also sign the letter (Perry, Walker, Gindhal) have since backed away....LOL


----------



## nat4900

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*
> 
> The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:
> 
> Signatories:
> Richard Shelby (Ala.)
> Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
> Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
> John McCain (Ariz.)
> John Boozman (Ark.)
> Tom Cotton (Ark.)
> Cory Gardner (Colo.)
> Marco Rubio (Fla.)
> Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
> David Perdue (Ga.)
> Mike Crapo (Idaho)
> Jim Risch (Idaho)
> Mark Kirk (Ill.)
> Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
> Joni Ernst (Iowa)
> Pat Roberts (Kansas)
> Jerry Moran (Kansas)
> Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
> Rand Paul (Ky.)
> David Vitter (La.)
> Bill Cassidy (La.)
> Roger Wicker (Miss.)
> Roy Blunt (Mo.)
> Steve Daines (Mont.)
> Deb Fischer (Neb.)
> Ben Sasse (Neb.)
> Dean Heller (Nev.)
> Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
> Richard Burr (N.C.)
> Thom Tillis (N.C.)
> John Hoeven (N.D.)
> Rob Portman (Ohio)
> Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
> James Lankford (Okla.)
> Pat Toomey (Pa.)
> Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
> Tim Scott (S.C.)
> John Thune (S.D.)
> Mike Rounds (S.D.)
> John Cornyn (Texas)
> Ted Cruz (Texas)
> Orin Hatch (Utah)
> Mike Lee (Utah)
> Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
> Ron Johnson (Wis.)
> Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
> John Barrasso (Wyo.)
> 
> *Did not sign:*
> Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
> Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
> Daniel Coats (Ind.)
> Susan Collins (Maine)
> Thad Cochran (Miss.)
> Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
> Bob Corker (Tenn.)
> 
> Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post
> 
> Is your Senator on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He just guaranteed not getting my vote again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both of mine are on the list and guaranteed my vote.
> One from Florida has my support in future endeavors as well.
Click to expand...


How's life on the antebellum plantation, Joe.


----------



## Ernie S.

Great! Life here is actually pretty good. Less racism than Massachusetts and St Louis, and more personal freedoms.


----------



## BluesLegend

nat4900 said:


> BluesLegend said:
> 
> 
> 
> You libs sure have short memories. Hillary Clinton threatened to "obliterate" Iran and Joe Biden called Obama "naïve" for his ideas on dealing with Iran. The GOP sent Iran a letter vs a threat to obliterate them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you right wing dingbats, we readily admit that many democrats make tons of mistakes when speaking off-the-cuff.....However, NO OTHER PARTY, like the tea-baggers known as the senate GOPers has ever had the utter stupidity to send a seditious letter to those we are trying to reach a worthwhile agreement......and all this, to please their rich donors and to show their rabid hatred of Obama as a "badge-of-courage."
Click to expand...


"off-the-cuff" lol so when Hillary makes that statement then backs it up several times when questioned about it, backs it up in a debate that's off the cuff? lol You are just mad because I rubbed your nose in it, well get a good long whiff that's the rotted festering stench of liberal hypocrisy.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

cnm said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Where's that?    And please, be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looking under your beds for 'Radical Islamists' among the dust bunnies.
Click to expand...


ROFL!!

Now how _ADORABLE_ is *THAT*?

(The Reader will recall our discussion regarding the Perverse Species of human reasoning which results in all manner of human deviancy, from sexual abnormality to the _'belief'_  that one is entitled to the property of other people based upon their existence, thus their _need; _all of which stemming from the cognitive deviation wherein the individual lacks the means to discern the distinction between reality and fiction; or truth and falsity; OR that the individual simply holds no regard for what distinction they are capable of sensing, which is the most commonly found presentation of the disorder.

What you witnessed in the public profession cited above, is a position wherein the individual pretends that 'Radical Islam'; which is to say 'Islam' is little more than a specter, a manifestation of the mind which doesn't actually exist in reality.  

They may or may not believe what they've said, but in terms of their being worthy of trust from your perspective as a reader, is irrelevant.  In that if they do believe, they're insane... thus unworthy of trust.  If they don't actually believe it and are advising you that its true, then they're a liar... thus unworthy of trust.)

See how that works?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

cnm said:


> You're the one squealing that Iran has been enabled.



LOL!  You act as if that is a debatable point.

obama has enabled Iran to pursue the development of Nuclear Weapons, he enabled the Muslim Brotherhood to stand in governance of Egypt, he's enabled the founding if ISIS, he enabled ISIS to raid the US Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi, he enabled the cover up of his enabling of ISIS, he enabled the Justice Department to sell High Powered Semi-Automatic Rifles to Mexican Drug Cartels and Gangs, known to them as international mass-murderers, kidnappers, drug wholesalers and retailers, all toward the goal of framing innocent US Citizens for the sales of guns to those known criminal entities, conspiring with the media to blame the US Gun Industry for such on the basis of greed and a lack of concern for the lives of innocent people... all of which obama and holder were BOTH AXIOMATICALLY GUILTY... he enabled the IRS to infringe upon the rights of innocent US Citizens from freely practicing their Constitutionally protected, God-given rights to peaceably assemble toward the establishing of an effective political organization... and so on and so forth.  

(Again Reader, the same contributor comes to demonstrate their own intellectual limitations in terms of discerning truth, from fiction.  

IF they believe that Iran, who has built VAST UNDERGROUND FACILITIES... for the purpose of processing nuclear material into material suitable for Nuclear weapons... has NOT been enabled to do so, as evidenced by their having DONE SO, then... they're delusional, thus unworthy of trust.

IF they do not believe it, but have advised you to believe it, then they're a liar... and unworthy of trust.)


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

nat4900 said:


> Profane AND stupid........Are we talking about the same CIA that assured us that Iraq was ladened with WMDs????



Which both the Kay and Dulfer Reports confirmed was the case... .   Yes, THAT... CIA.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*
> 
> The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:
> 
> Signatories:
> Richard Shelby (Ala.)
> Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
> Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
> John McCain (Ariz.)
> John Boozman (Ark.)
> Tom Cotton (Ark.)
> Cory Gardner (Colo.)
> Marco Rubio (Fla.)
> Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
> David Perdue (Ga.)
> Mike Crapo (Idaho)
> Jim Risch (Idaho)
> Mark Kirk (Ill.)
> Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
> Joni Ernst (Iowa)
> Pat Roberts (Kansas)
> Jerry Moran (Kansas)
> Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
> Rand Paul (Ky.)
> David Vitter (La.)
> Bill Cassidy (La.)
> Roger Wicker (Miss.)
> Roy Blunt (Mo.)
> Steve Daines (Mont.)
> Deb Fischer (Neb.)
> Ben Sasse (Neb.)
> Dean Heller (Nev.)
> Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
> Richard Burr (N.C.)
> Thom Tillis (N.C.)
> John Hoeven (N.D.)
> Rob Portman (Ohio)
> Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
> James Lankford (Okla.)
> Pat Toomey (Pa.)
> Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
> Tim Scott (S.C.)
> John Thune (S.D.)
> Mike Rounds (S.D.)
> John Cornyn (Texas)
> Ted Cruz (Texas)
> Orin Hatch (Utah)
> Mike Lee (Utah)
> Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
> Ron Johnson (Wis.)
> Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
> John Barrasso (Wyo.)
> 
> *Did not sign:*
> Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
> Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
> Daniel Coats (Ind.)
> Susan Collins (Maine)
> Thad Cochran (Miss.)
> Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
> Bob Corker (Tenn.)
> 
> Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post
> 
> Is your Senator on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He just guaranteed not getting my vote again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both of mine are on the list and guaranteed my vote.
> One from Florida has my support in future endeavors as well.
Click to expand...


You support our politicians making us look weak to the world?  Wow


----------



## Lakhota

*



*
*
Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'*

DUBAI, March 12 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader hit out on Thursday at a letter by U.S. Republican senators threatening to undo any nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran, saying he was worried because the United States was known for "backstabbing," Mehr news agency reported.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added at a meeting with President Hassan Rouhani and senior clerics that whenever negotiators made progress, the Americans became "harsher, tougher and coarser," Mehr reported.

The letter signed by 47 Republican senators warned Iran that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remained in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.

Mehr quoted Khamenei as saying: "Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing."

*"Every time we reach a stage where the end of the negotiations is in sight, the tone of the other side, specifically the Americans, becomes harsher, coarser and tougher. This is the nature of their tricks and deceptions."*

The negotiations, which resume in Lausanne, Switzerland, next week, are at a critical juncture as the sides try to meet an end of March target for an interim deal, with a final deal in June.

Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'

Does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have a point?  Personally, I think the U.S. is known for a lot of things - and a lot of it BAD.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

cnm said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are totally non-credible, since iran was the aggressor and terrorist supporter, and should have been attacked.  Just admit you are against all wars, and stop pretending to be something you are not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should admit you're a chickenhawk prepared to have others wage aggressive war on your behalf in contravention of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. I support countries waging wars of self defence, you support wars of aggression.
Click to expand...


Oh!  What a lovely example of obscurant deflection.  Wherein the contributor yieds from the standing points of the position IT CITED as the point of its response... thus yielding from that point, leaving the point standing, therefore axiomatically CONCEDING to that point.
_
Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


----------



## Brain357

Lakhota said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
> Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'*
> 
> DUBAI, March 12 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader hit out on Thursday at a letter by U.S. Republican senators threatening to undo any nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran, saying he was worried because the United States was known for "backstabbing," Mehr news agency reported.
> 
> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added at a meeting with President Hassan Rouhani and senior clerics that whenever negotiators made progress, the Americans became "harsher, tougher and coarser," Mehr reported.
> 
> The letter signed by 47 Republican senators warned Iran that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remained in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.
> 
> Mehr quoted Khamenei as saying: "Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing."
> 
> *"Every time we reach a stage where the end of the negotiations is in sight, the tone of the other side, specifically the Americans, becomes harsher, coarser and tougher. This is the nature of their tricks and deceptions."*
> 
> The negotiations, which resume in Lausanne, Switzerland, next week, are at a critical juncture as the sides try to meet an end of March target for an interim deal, with a final deal in June.
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'
> 
> Does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have a point?  Personally, I think the U.S. is known for a lot of things - and a lot of it BAD.



Some I our senators seems to support what he's saying.


----------



## nat4900

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profane AND stupid........Are we talking about the same CIA that assured us that Iraq was ladened with WMDs????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which both the Kay and Dulfer Reports confirmed was the case... .   Yes, THAT... CIA.
Click to expand...


Kay and Duelfer?????? Really???? What a dingbat you must be.....you get your "true facts" from the Heritage Foundation and Fox and, accordingly you have crossed the line from being just stupid to being an all-out moron. Congrats !!!!! LOL


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Those interested in the truth regarding the obama Cult's promoting of the interests of the enemies of the United States, with Iran being particularly relevant here... in this thread, take a listen to Mark Levin's point of view, here:

LEVIN Obama to use U.N. to ram through Iran deal pretend it allows him to IGNORE CONSTITUTION The Right Scoop -


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

nat4900 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profane AND stupid........Are we talking about the same CIA that assured us that Iraq was ladened with WMDs????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which both the Kay and Dulfer Reports confirmed was the case... .   Yes, THAT... CIA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kay and Duelfer?????? Really???? What a dingbat you must be.....you get your "true facts" from the Heritage Foundation and Fox and, accordingly you have crossed the line from being just stupid to being an all-out moron. Congrats !!!!! LOL
Click to expand...


Both Day and Dulfer reported HUNDREDS of TONS of stockpiled materials required in the production of Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW), along with DOZENS of facilities which had recently been abandoned, which were used for the fabrication of Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW).  

This is not even a debatable point.
_
So with that said, your concession is DULY NOTED and SUMMARILY ACCEPTED._


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
> Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'*
> 
> DUBAI, March 12 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader hit out on Thursday at a letter by U.S. Republican senators threatening to undo any nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran, saying he was worried because the United States was known for "backstabbing," Mehr news agency reported.
> 
> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added at a meeting with President Hassan Rouhani and senior clerics that whenever negotiators made progress, the Americans became "harsher, tougher and coarser," Mehr reported.
> 
> The letter signed by 47 Republican senators warned Iran that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remained in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.
> 
> Mehr quoted Khamenei as saying: "Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing."
> 
> *"Every time we reach a stage where the end of the negotiations is in sight, the tone of the other side, specifically the Americans, becomes harsher, coarser and tougher. This is the nature of their tricks and deceptions."*
> 
> The negotiations, which resume in Lausanne, Switzerland, next week, are at a critical juncture as the sides try to meet an end of March target for an interim deal, with a final deal in June.
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'
> 
> Does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have a point?  Personally, I think the U.S. is known for a lot of things - and a lot of it BAD.


OOOOO Iran's Terrorist in Chief is upset. Too fucking bad.


----------



## Faun

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profane AND stupid........Are we talking about the same CIA that assured us that Iraq was ladened with WMDs????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which both the Kay and Dulfer Reports confirmed was the case... .   Yes, THAT... CIA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kay and Duelfer?????? Really???? What a dingbat you must be.....you get your "true facts" from the Heritage Foundation and Fox and, accordingly you have crossed the line from being just stupid to being an all-out moron. Congrats !!!!! LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Day and Dulfer reported HUNDREDS of TONS of stockpiled materials required in the production of Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW), along with DOZENS of facilities which had recently been abandoned, which were used for the fabrication of Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW).
> 
> This is not even a debatable point.
> _
> So with that said, your concession is DULY NOTED and SUMMARILY ACCEPTED._
Click to expand...

_ "We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday._


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *
> Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'*
> 
> DUBAI, March 12 (Reuters) - Iran's Supreme Leader hit out on Thursday at a letter by U.S. Republican senators threatening to undo any nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran, saying he was worried because the United States was known for "backstabbing," Mehr news agency reported.
> 
> Ayatollah Ali Khamenei added at a meeting with President Hassan Rouhani and senior clerics that whenever negotiators made progress, the Americans became "harsher, tougher and coarser," Mehr reported.
> 
> The letter signed by 47 Republican senators warned Iran that any nuclear deal made with U.S. President Barack Obama could last only as long as he remained in office, in an unusual intervention into U.S. foreign policy-making.
> 
> Mehr quoted Khamenei as saying: "Of course I am worried, because the other side is known for opacity, deceit and backstabbing."
> 
> *"Every time we reach a stage where the end of the negotiations is in sight, the tone of the other side, specifically the Americans, becomes harsher, coarser and tougher. This is the nature of their tricks and deceptions."*
> 
> The negotiations, which resume in Lausanne, Switzerland, next week, are at a critical juncture as the sides try to meet an end of March target for an interim deal, with a final deal in June.
> 
> Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing'
> 
> Does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have a point?  Personally, I think the U.S. is known for a lot of things - and a lot of it BAD.
> 
> 
> 
> OOOOO Iran's Terrorist in Chief is upset. Too fucking bad.
Click to expand...


Everyone should be.  These senators make us look like a bunch of clowns.


----------



## Ernie S.

Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.



No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.


----------



## idb

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
Click to expand...

At least they learnt something from the Iranian response.
There are now 47 Republican Congressmen that know a little bit more about the US Constitution and international relations than they did a week ago.


----------



## nat4900

idb said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least they learnt something from the Iranian response.
> There are now 47 Republican Congressmen that know a little bit more about the US Constitution and international relations than they did a week ago.
Click to expand...




....but, but, Cotton and Rubio and Paul ARE the future....the "young guns"  of the tea-sipping party.....LOL


----------



## nat4900

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Profane AND stupid........Are we talking about the same CIA that assured us that Iraq was ladened with WMDs????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which both the Kay and Dulfer Reports confirmed was the case... .   Yes, THAT... CIA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kay and Duelfer?????? Really???? What a dingbat you must be.....you get your "true facts" from the Heritage Foundation and Fox and, accordingly you have crossed the line from being just stupid to being an all-out moron. Congrats !!!!! LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both Day and Dulfer reported HUNDREDS of TONS of stockpiled materials required in the production of Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW), along with DOZENS of facilities which had recently been abandoned, which were used for the fabrication of Chemical Biological Weapons (CBW).
> 
> This is not even a debatable point.
> _
> So with that said, your concession is DULY NOTED and SUMMARILY ACCEPTED._
Click to expand...


Boring, boring and inane response......Zzzzzzzzs


----------



## cnm

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> IF they believe that Iran, who has built VAST UNDERGROUND FACILITIES... for the purpose of processing nuclear material into material suitable for Nuclear weapons... has NOT been enabled to do so, as evidenced by their having DONE SO, then... they're delusional, thus unworthy of trust.
> 
> IF they do not believe it, but have advised you to believe it, then they're a liar... and unworthy of trust.)


Fuckwit43 enabled Iran by removing its opposition, Saddam. That Iran is able to refine Uranium does not mean it is presently seeking a nuclear device. That Iran may have worked towards a nuclear device previously does not mean it is presently pursuing a nuclear device; in much the same way that because the US has twice used nuclear devices on cities does not mean it is currently working to use nuclear devices on another two cities. Though it is in breach of the NNTP, there is no argument there.

You have failed to point out what protocols or agreements Iran is breaching. The IAEA cannot say Iran is currently in breach of any part of them, merely that they do not have a full history of Iran's endeavours. Well tough tit, I don't see that anywhere in the protocols.


----------



## cnm

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Oh!  What a lovely example of obscurant deflection.  Wherein the contributor yieds from the standing points of the position IT CITED as the point of its response... thus yielding from that point, leaving the point standing, therefore axiomatically CONCEDING to that point.
> _
> Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted._


What a load of prententious meaningless hogwash. Thusly, axiomatically.


----------



## nat4900

Moronic right wingers STILL cling to the fantasy that Saddam had WMDs....Sure, and he gave them to Syria out of kindness......Like the guy whose home is broken into by a murder.....reaches for his gun......and promptly throws it to his neighbor's yard.......Make sense?


----------



## Dot Com

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
Click to expand...

^ that


----------



## TooTall

TheOldSchool said:


> Wow that's damn near treasonous.  Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy.  But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.



This is not damned near treasonous, it is treasonous!   if there had been a declaration of war against Vietnam, John Kerry would still be in prison instead of being Sec of State.

"I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> If you work in manufacturing you have benefited from Unions ...
> I am in my 60 s and retired Mr Pragmatic Liberal wing nut ... I worked since I was 11 years old...



No, i haven't. Unions have driven most of the manufacturing in this country to Asia.


----------



## Wry Catcher

rhodescholar said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet some people warned of the consequences of deposing Saddam. What did they know, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was against the iraq invasion, but just to see if you have any shred of credibility, would you have accepted an attack on iran instead, a country that was/is the cause of so much conflict in the mideast?
Click to expand...


Are you nuts?  I suggest you take a walk through anyone of our national cemeteries, read the names and read their ages.  

An example is at Fort Rosecrans National Cemetery in San Diego.  There is one long row where Marines, most under the age of 21, lie next to each other, all killed on the same day during a beach landing during World War II.  

This ^^^ is an example, not an anomaly.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> There are anecdotal cases that may reflect abuses of the system sure ...you are taking those and saying "all union members abuse the system"...just like you said "the Unions threatened to gut Walker's wife" ...that did not happen...some nut or extremist may have made threats ...just like GOP officials have called for lynchings...



Uh, no, guy.  Frankly, I've worked with government union types when I was in the service.  Basically, they managed to take one hour of work and stretch into an entire day ordeal. 

And, yeah, some Union Thug did threaten to gut Walker's wife.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Speaking of Joeb131 and GOP idiocy *
> 
> *New York Times Editorial: Republican Idiocy on Iran*
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/o...type=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region®ion=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0
> 
> After helping to ignite a firestorm over a possible nuclear agreement with Iran, Senator John McCain, a former Republican presidential candidate, is now sort of acknowledging his error. “Maybe that wasn’t exactly the best way to do that,” he said on Fox News on Tuesday.



Wow, you mean there's someone who still gives a crap what the New York Times has to say?  

Reality check.  Obama is trying to burnish his failed presidency with a bad deal with Iran. What the GOP did was stupid, what Obama is trying to do is stupider.


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> I don't think that many of us on the left would argue that there are no excesses regarding unions.....BUT, you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.......The obvious fact is that Walker is a Koch "hired gun" to do their greedy biddings to rid Wisconsin of collective bargaining...For the Koch brothers it isn't really any longer about just money, but the POWER that their current wealth can garner in buying themselves all of the political whores they may want.



Again, guy, what you are saying is Democracy doesn't matter, then.  The people of Wisconsin voted for Walker THREE TIMES. Probably because they look at what it costs to prop up these gross union benefits and said, "enough". 

All Walker did was bring Wisconsin's unions in line with what Federal Unions have.


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> WTF? How about the swiftboat vet who said Kerry didn't earn his Bronze Star for heroism under fire because he was there and they weren't under fire? Turned out, that very same vet also earned a Bronze Star for valor under fire for that same event



If you read "Stolen Valor", that was largely discussed.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Joeb is a born again Right wing nut who claims to be a "liberal" he works in manufacturing so he has benefited from Unions fighting for better wages , working conditions , health care...but Joeb was born again as a GOP stooge who blames Unions for everything and supports Gov Walker being* literally* at the beck and call of vested powerful interests like the Koch brothers...he has no problems with Walker being a house servant of the Koch brothers ...Joeb also declar3ed that"most people are cool with prisoners in US jail being abused"...he busted out with that when I pointed out a Florida prisoner had been boiled alive by correctional officers in Fl....



Yes, when you take a mentally ill, violent crackhead into your home, I'll take your compassion seriously  

Meanwhile, I'm damned glad we have prisons for these people.  

MEANWHILE- You know what, my factory is a non-union shop and frankly, corporate does most of those things without unions prodding them.  This is the real problem unions have. They've outlived their usefulness.  Companies offer health care and better working conditions because - IT'S GOOD BUSINESS.  Not because some union slug is out there threatening to gut his wife like a deer. 

Hey, do you know why the two guys who boiled Johnny Crackhead alive are still prison guards? Union rules.


----------



## JoeB131

Wry Catcher said:


> Q. how old are you? It is important to know, because the late 1960's and early 1970's cannot be judged from afar. The Vietnam War changed America rapidly, from happy days and sock hops to a polarized society faced with war live on TV every evening.
> 
> A nation watching the death count rise and two presidents - one Democrat and one Republican - assuring us that there was light at the end of the tunnel, and the first domino would not fall. A load of crap bought once again by a Congress giving us the Iraq Fiasco, the consequences we will live with until the last wounded warrior passes on.



All valid points-  And it STILL doesn't excuse what Kerry and Jane Fonda and others did.  

But Kerry's problem was he didn't want to own up to what he did. He wanted to paint himself as a war hero, not the guy who threw his medals at Congress.


----------



## JoeB131

TyroneSlothrop said:


> hey JoeB131...U R pathetic



Hey, dumbshit.  The democrats aren't for working people, either.  They want to keep giving money to their trial lawyer and welfare buddies. 

Which again, why I'll probably support Walker.  At least he gets it that working folks are being asked to carry too heavy a burden.


----------



## Billo_Really

Brain357 said:


> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.


The 47 acted like_* "trained seals"*_, when Netanfuckyou spoke.

They were an embarrassment to Americans everywhere.


----------



## JoeB131

Brain357 said:


> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow



I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea. 

No shortage of bad ideas here.


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> Those senators just "kissed goodbye" their own chances of ever running for the WH....and perhaps even their re-election for that seat ...can you picture the opponents' ads?
> 
> Also, you may have noticed that other right wing governors who were ....at first....clamoring to also sign the letter (Perry, Walker, Gindhal) have since backed away....LOL



Meh, no one is going to be talking about this after a week.  

The reality is, the GOP will nominate Bush, the Democrats will nominate Hillary.


----------



## Care4all

JoeB131 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
Click to expand...

It's not a treaty...


----------



## JoeB131

Care4all said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
Click to expand...


So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.  

To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.


----------



## JimH52

The repubs may have successfully scuttled out best chance to stop and monitor Iran's nuclear ambitions.  I guess they are pretty proud, but their real joy will come when the only option left is to invade Iran and spill the blood of innocent people.


----------



## Lakhota

I certainly trust President Obama more than 47 NaziCon Senators who hate him to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran.


----------



## natstew

Care4all said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
Click to expand...


A treaty under any other name is still a treaty. It is a treaty!


----------



## Care4all

JoeB131 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.
> 
> To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.
Click to expand...

I don't trust them, but I don't truly trust any country in the middle east, nor many other places in the world either, I think mainly because I don't understand their cultures (good to back stab and or lie if it is for their benefit type cultures?) or governments.  Let's see what this agreement is, if we ever even come to an agreement between executives...I've seen nothing but speculation and don't know much...and I don't think anyone out there knows any of the true details, especially the classified details from the President's advisers....the, 'what's going on behind the scenes type stuff?...who knows, we are always doing just about the darn opposite of whatever we say we are going to do, at least in a black ops type of way.


----------



## Brain357

JoeB131 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.
> 
> To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.
Click to expand...


Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> They didnt.
> 
> 
> 
> A gang of heavily financed lying bastards smeared Kerry and whay they did is now known as "Swiftboating"... when one says such and such is getting "swiftboated" it means slandered....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> what did these guys say, specifically, that wasn't true?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> No, the real problem was that Kerry didn't own up to what he did when he was hanging with Jane Fonda.
Click to expand...

No answer...?

How about the swiftboat vet who said Kerry didn't earn his Bronze Star for heroism under fire because he was there and they weren't under fire? Turned out, that very same vet also earned a Bronze Star for valor under fire for that same event.


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that many of us on the left would argue that there are no excesses regarding unions.....BUT, you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.......The obvious fact is that Walker is a Koch "hired gun" to do their greedy biddings to rid Wisconsin of collective bargaining...For the Koch brothers it isn't really any longer about just money, but the POWER that their current wealth can garner in buying themselves all of the political whores they may want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joeb is a born again Right wing nut  who claims to be a "liberal" he works in manufacturing so he has benefited from Unions fighting for better wages , working conditions , health care...but Joeb was born again as a GOP stooge who blames Unions for everything and supports Gov Walker being* literally* at the beck and call of vested powerful interests like the Koch brothers...he has no problems with Walker being a house servant of the Koch brothers ...Joeb also declar3ed that"most people are cool with prisoners in US jail being abused"...he busted out with that when I pointed out a Florida prisoner had been boiled alive by correctional officers  in Fl....
Click to expand...


You sure about that?  I think JoeB is a lefty.    He hates our 2nd amendment right.  I don't think I know of even ONE person on the right who is anti 2nd amendment.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.
> 
> To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
Click to expand...


Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.
> 
> To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?
Click to expand...


Have you lost your mind?  First I've never said we should ban guns.  Second an agreement will keep them from having nukes.  Certainly doing nothing will not keep them from nukes and we sure can't have another war to stop them.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.
> 
> To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you lost your mind?  First I've never said we should ban guns.  Second an agreement will keep them from having nukes.  Certainly doing nothing will not keep them from nukes and we sure can't have another war to stop them.
Click to expand...


Bull,  You are another dishonest gun banner.  You might deny it, but your statements belie your claim.  You are an anti-2nd amendment traitor to the American people, wanting to limit or ban one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those senators just "kissed goodbye" their own chances of ever running for the WH....and perhaps even their re-election for that seat ...can you picture the opponents' ads?
> 
> Also, you may have noticed that other right wing governors who were ....at first....clamoring to also sign the letter (Perry, Walker, Gindhal) have since backed away....LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, no one is going to be talking about this after a week.
> 
> The reality is, the GOP will nominate Bush, the Democrats will nominate Hillary.
Click to expand...


Well, you're probably correct about a Clinton-Bush bout....and since Jeb wanted to also sign that cute letter, the democrat strategists will NOT let him forget it.........However you are very wrong that this semi-seditious act will be forgotten in a week.....look at what you're still spewing about Kerry and Fonda.......Paul and Rubio just about conceded a run for the WH....FOR EVER.


----------



## JoeB131

Lakhota said:


> I certainly trust President Obama more than 47 NaziCon Senators who hate him to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran.



that wasn't the question I was asking, Chief Running Bull.  

I asked a simple question.  Can we trust the Iranians to keep their end of the agreement?


----------



## Brain357

Your crazy righties are aware that sanctions are dependent on the rest of the world right?  So if Europe, Russia, and China want a deal they can still make one and lift their sanctions?  I would imagine all the countries involved are more than a little irritated with these senators.  It has really hurt us with friend and foe.


----------



## nat4900

.[/QUOTE]

Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?  [/QUOTE]

ull,  You are another dishonest gun banner.  You might deny it, but your statements belie your claim.  You are an anti-2nd amendment traitor to the American people, wanting to limit or ban one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.[/QUOTE]

Give it a rest there Sparky and go play with your guns in some basement with a glass of wine, the lights turned low and sensual music.


----------



## ChrisL

Anyone who is okay with those insane religious fanatic mullahs who truly believe in a 12th disciple and wish to bring about the end of the world, having any kind of nuclear power is crazy.  End of story.


----------



## Lakhota

JoeB131 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly trust President Obama more than 47 NaziCon Senators who hate him to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that wasn't the question I was asking, Chief Running Bull.
> 
> I asked a simple question.  Can we trust the Iranians to keep their end of the agreement?
Click to expand...


I wasn't addressing you - so fuck off.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.
> 
> To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you lost your mind?  First I've never said we should ban guns.  Second an agreement will keep them from having nukes.  Certainly doing nothing will not keep them from nukes and we sure can't have another war to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull,  You are another dishonest gun banner.  You might deny it, but your statements belie your claim.  You are an anti-2nd amendment traitor to the American people, wanting to limit or ban one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
Click to expand...


Prove it and post where I have ever suggested banning guns.  Otherwise stfu.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> .



Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?  [/QUOTE]

ull,  You are another dishonest gun banner.  You might deny it, but your statements belie your claim.  You are an anti-2nd amendment traitor to the American people, wanting to limit or ban one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.[/QUOTE]

Give it a rest there Sparky and go play with your guns in some basement with a glass of wine, the lights turned low and sensual music.[/QUOTE]

Who is Sparky?  Perhaps you are addressing the wrong post.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.
> 
> To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you lost your mind?  First I've never said we should ban guns.  Second an agreement will keep them from having nukes.  Certainly doing nothing will not keep them from nukes and we sure can't have another war to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull,  You are another dishonest gun banner.  You might deny it, but your statements belie your claim.  You are an anti-2nd amendment traitor to the American people, wanting to limit or ban one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it and post where I have ever suggested banning guns.  Otherwise stfu.
Click to expand...


Don't have to.  Anyone who has argued with you about it already knows.  And no, I will not STFU.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Anyone who is okay with those insane religious fanatic mullahs who truly believe in a 12th disciple and wish to bring about the end of the world, having any kind of nuclear power is crazy.  End of story.



Nobody wants that, but not having a deal will give them no incentive not to get a nuke.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you lost your mind?  First I've never said we should ban guns.  Second an agreement will keep them from having nukes.  Certainly doing nothing will not keep them from nukes and we sure can't have another war to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull,  You are another dishonest gun banner.  You might deny it, but your statements belie your claim.  You are an anti-2nd amendment traitor to the American people, wanting to limit or ban one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it and post where I have ever suggested banning guns.  Otherwise stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  Anyone who has argued with you about it already knows.  And no, I will not STFU.
Click to expand...


Well then stop acting like a child.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is okay with those insane religious fanatic mullahs who truly believe in a 12th disciple and wish to bring about the end of the world, having any kind of nuclear power is crazy.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody wants that, but not having a deal will give them no incentive not to get a nuke.
Click to expand...


Then they would be getting it without OUR approval, and that is a good thing.  I care much more about the security of the world, and it running smoothly than I care about diplomacy.  Diplomacy can take a back seat when security is at risk.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you effing kidding me?  YOU are the one who is against law-abiding US citizens having guns and practicing a guaranteed constitutional right but want Iran to have nukes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you lost your mind?  First I've never said we should ban guns.  Second an agreement will keep them from having nukes.  Certainly doing nothing will not keep them from nukes and we sure can't have another war to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull,  You are another dishonest gun banner.  You might deny it, but your statements belie your claim.  You are an anti-2nd amendment traitor to the American people, wanting to limit or ban one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove it and post where I have ever suggested banning guns.  Otherwise stfu.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't have to.  Anyone who has argued with you about it already knows.  And no, I will not STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then stop acting like a child.
Click to expand...


Stating that you are a hypocrite is not acting like a child.  Just because you know that your ideas are completely contradictory, that is YOUR problem.


----------



## nat4900

.[/QUOTE]

that wasn't the question I was asking, Chief Running Bull. 

I asked a simple question.  Can we trust the Iranians to keep their end of the agreement?[/QUOTE]

I'm sure the other poster can also answer.....but my take on your question is a "maybe".....Certainly NO agreement gives Iran a green light....Certainly war-monger Bibi re-election gives Iran a green light...and Certainly one day Iran will have nukes the same way that Israel does, Pakistan does and North Korea does.


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> Well, you're probably correct about a Clinton-Bush bout....and since Jeb wanted to also sign that cute letter, the democrat strategists will NOT let him forget it.........However you are very wrong that this semi-seditious act will be forgotten in a week.....look at what you're still spewing about Kerry and Fonda.......Paul and Rubio just about conceded a run for the WH....FOR EVER.



Fonda and Kerry stabbed people in the back when we were fighting. 

Most Americans probably think that any agreement with the Iranians is a terrible idea.


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> I'm sure the other poster can also answer.....but my take on your question is a "maybe".....Certainly NO agreement gives Iran a green light....Certainly war-monger Bibi re-election gives Iran a green light...and Certainly one day Iran will have nukes the same way that Israel does, Pakistan does and North Korea does.



Maybe you are right.  BUt why does that make getting an agreement we cant enforce now a big priority, I mean other than Obama polishing his presidency?


----------



## JoeB131

Brain357 said:


> Without an agreement they will get nukes. Better to have an agreement.



Without an agreement, sanctions stay in place. Which means it takes them longer to get a nuke and MAYBE inflict just enough misery on them that they might have an Iranian Spring against the Mullahs. 

Again, this looks a lot like Obama getting an agreement for Obama.


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> How about the swiftboat vet who said Kerry didn't earn his Bronze Star for heroism under fire because he was there and they weren't under fire? Turned out, that very same vet also earned a Bronze Star for valor under fire for that same event.



I gave you an answer to that one.  The person who was given that bronze star was not aware the Navy had put him in for it until after he returned to the states and mustered out into a Naval Reserve unit.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about the swiftboat vet who said Kerry didn't earn his Bronze Star for heroism under fire because he was there and they weren't under fire? Turned out, that very same vet also earned a Bronze Star for valor under fire for that same event.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you an answer to that one.  The person who was given that bronze star was not aware the Navy had put him in for it until after he returned to the states and mustered out into a Naval Reserve unit.
Click to expand...

Umm ... his lie about not being under fire came from him long after he returned and long after he knew he himself earned a Bronze Star. What else ya got?


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> Umm ... his lie about not being under fire came from him long after he returned and long after he knew he himself earned a Bronze Star. What else ya got?



You mean other than there was a lot of "medal inflation" going on that day? 

Here's the thing.  The military is very good at giving medals to officers. It's not so good at giving them to enlisted men.  SO if you see an EM with a Bronze Star, you should be impressed, an officer, not so much. 

Again, my problem is not with what medals he got.  Anyone who spent more than a few years in uniform realizes the whole medal thing is kind of silly.  And frankly, if we were just talking about officers in Vietnam getting medals for blowing up rice bins (which is what Kerry was doing that day) there wouldn't be an issue here.  

The issue with Kerry is that he made slanderous accusations against other Vietnam vets when he came back. And some of them didn't like being called baby killers.


----------



## Faun

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*
> 
> The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:
> 
> Signatories:
> Richard Shelby (Ala.)
> Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
> Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
> John McCain (Ariz.)
> John Boozman (Ark.)
> Tom Cotton (Ark.)
> Cory Gardner (Colo.)
> Marco Rubio (Fla.)
> Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
> David Perdue (Ga.)
> Mike Crapo (Idaho)
> Jim Risch (Idaho)
> Mark Kirk (Ill.)
> Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
> Joni Ernst (Iowa)
> Pat Roberts (Kansas)
> Jerry Moran (Kansas)
> Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
> Rand Paul (Ky.)
> David Vitter (La.)
> Bill Cassidy (La.)
> Roger Wicker (Miss.)
> Roy Blunt (Mo.)
> Steve Daines (Mont.)
> Deb Fischer (Neb.)
> Ben Sasse (Neb.)
> Dean Heller (Nev.)
> Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
> Richard Burr (N.C.)
> Thom Tillis (N.C.)
> John Hoeven (N.D.)
> Rob Portman (Ohio)
> Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
> James Lankford (Okla.)
> Pat Toomey (Pa.)
> Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
> Tim Scott (S.C.)
> John Thune (S.D.)
> Mike Rounds (S.D.)
> John Cornyn (Texas)
> Ted Cruz (Texas)
> Orin Hatch (Utah)
> Mike Lee (Utah)
> Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
> Ron Johnson (Wis.)
> Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
> John Barrasso (Wyo.)
> 
> *Did not sign:*
> Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
> Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
> Daniel Coats (Ind.)
> Susan Collins (Maine)
> Thad Cochran (Miss.)
> Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
> Bob Corker (Tenn.)
> 
> Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post
> 
> Is your Senator on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He just guaranteed not getting my vote again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both of mine are on the list and guaranteed my vote.
> One from Florida has my support in future endeavors as well.
Click to expand...

They would have gotten your vote anyway. They're gonna lose a lot of votes in the next election. An election where most Senators up for re-election are Republican.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm ... his lie about not being under fire came from him long after he returned and long after he knew he himself earned a Bronze Star. What else ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean other than there was a lot of "medal inflation" going on that day?
> 
> Here's the thing.  The military is very good at giving medals to officers. It's not so good at giving them to enlisted men.  SO if you see an EM with a Bronze Star, you should be impressed, an officer, not so much.
> 
> Again, my problem is not with what medals he got.  Anyone who spent more than a few years in uniform realizes the whole medal thing is kind of silly.  And frankly, if we were just talking about officers in Vietnam getting medals for blowing up rice bins (which is what Kerry was doing that day) there wouldn't be an issue here.
> 
> The issue with Kerry is that he made slanderous accusations against other Vietnam vets when he came back. And some of them didn't like being called baby killers.
Click to expand...

"Silly" isn't the issue. I'm sure you know that. The guy flat out lied. Like Kerry, he earned a Bronze Star *for valor under fire. *


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> "Silly" isn't the issue. I'm sure you know that. The guy flat out lied. Like Kerry, he earned a Bronze Star *for valor under fire.*



No, he didn't lie.  He just remembered the story differently than John Kerry who thought Nixon ordered him into Cambodia when he wasn't President yet.


----------



## nat4900

Like it or not (and partially "thanks" to those 47 dimwits who signed the letter) if an agreement is  reached, Obama will probably be awarded another Nobel......Mind you, I don't think he's really earned another one, but Obama may just get it.....(and if he does, he should sincerely thank those tea-sippers in the senate.)


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Silly" isn't the issue. I'm sure you know that. The guy flat out lied. Like Kerry, he earned a Bronze Star *for valor under fire.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't lie.  He just remembered the story differently than John Kerry who thought Nixon ordered him into Cambodia when he wasn't President yet.
Click to expand...

Suuuure. He didn't remember earning a Bronze Star with Valor.  He remembered the event but just forgot about being under fire ... forgot about his boat getting shot up ... forgot about how it was common for vietcong to open fire after boats hit mines ... forgot about being given a medal ... 


...... wait .......


----------



## Care4all

ChrisL said:


> Anyone who is okay with those insane religious fanatic mullahs who truly believe in a 12th disciple and wish to bring about the end of the world, having any kind of nuclear power is crazy.  End of story.


Who WANTS them to have nukes??  Did I miss something Chris?


----------



## rhodescholar

cnm said:


> You should admit you're a chickenhawk prepared to have others wage aggressive war on your behalf in contravention of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. I support countries waging wars of self defence, you support wars of aggression.



Fuckhead idiot, I served longer than you've been alive, and one does not need to be in the fucking army to want to use the military, no more than one needs to become a teacher or a cop to improve their city's schools or police force, thats infantile trolling deflective BS.

Second, since iran is in violation of multiple parts of the UN charter, including threatening and attacking other member states, supporting terrorism, shipping weapons to other countries in violation of multiple UNSC resolutions not to do so - a military strike against it under Chapter 7 would be more than justifiable at this point.

Waiting for the mideast to fall under iranian control, and half of europe under putin the animal's control, is not a strategy - its fucking lunacy.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> It is evil AND



You're an idiot asshole, all you can do is personal insult with zero facts and less brains.  You're close to being ignored, as you have nothing of value to offer.  Better if you just stayed quiet and let the adults talk.


----------



## rhodescholar

Lakhota said:


> *Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing' *Does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have a point?  Personally, I think the U.S. is known for a lot of things - and a lot of it BAD.



Does anyone sane give a flying fuck what that whore bastard mass murderer has to say?  Liberals are so fucking beyond stupid it is astounding; they will suck the cock of anyone or anything, no matter how fucking vile, as long as it is an enemy of the GOP/conservatives/America.


----------



## Care4all

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Silly" isn't the issue. I'm sure you know that. The guy flat out lied. Like Kerry, he earned a Bronze Star *for valor under fire.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't lie.  He just remembered the story differently than John Kerry who thought Nixon ordered him into Cambodia when he wasn't President yet.
Click to expand...

the Christmas eve crossing the border was during president elect nixon, but in Jan of 69' and february 1969 he was sent in to Cambodia 3 times in which Nixon was the President...


----------



## rhodescholar

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> You have failed to point out what protocols or agreements Iran is breaching. The IAEA cannot say Iran is currently in breach of any part of them, merely that they do not have a full history of Iran's endeavours. Well tough tit, I don't see that anywhere in the protocols.



Asshole, are you a fucking parrot?  When a country blocks inspections, they cannot turn around and claim "hey, we're innocent!"  Either allow full and unfettered inspections, or admit you are guilty.  BTW, i noticed you ignored my post on this several pages back, no surprise given you have zero credibility, the same as your scumbag president.


----------



## rhodescholar

JimH52 said:


> The repubs may have successfully scuttled out best chance to stop and monitor Iran's nuclear ambitions.  I guess they are pretty proud, but their real joy will come when the only option left is to invade Iran and spill the blood of innocent people.



You mean during the TWELVE years of failed negotiations, iran was fully co-operating and allowing unfettered inspections?  Really?  Are you that fucking stupid?


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.



Imbecile, you think they won't lie, cheat and make any agreement worthless?  That they won't obtain them with this worthless agreement in place?  Are you that fucking stupid?


----------



## Care4all

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm ... his lie about not being under fire came from him long after he returned and long after he knew he himself earned a Bronze Star. What else ya got?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean other than there was a lot of "medal inflation" going on that day?
> 
> Here's the thing.  The military is very good at giving medals to officers. It's not so good at giving them to enlisted men.  SO if you see an EM with a Bronze Star, you should be impressed, an officer, not so much.
> 
> Again, my problem is not with what medals he got.  Anyone who spent more than a few years in uniform realizes the whole medal thing is kind of silly.  And frankly, if we were just talking about officers in Vietnam getting medals for blowing up rice bins (which is what Kerry was doing that day) there wouldn't be an issue here.
> 
> The issue with Kerry is that he made slanderous accusations against other Vietnam vets when he came back. And some of them didn't like being called baby killers.
Click to expand...

wasn't it 150 men saying that?  The ''winter Soldiers'' that he met with before testifying?


----------



## Dante

Vigilante said:


> And who can forget this despicable act of Nancy Piglosi's!!!
> 
> Remembering Nancy Pelosi s Syria Junket - Commentary Magazine Commentary Magazine
> 
> Or that communist sellout...Ted Kennedy!!!
> 
> Ted Kennedy Secretly Asked The Soviets To Intervene In 1984 Elections


Uhm, nowhere does it suggest intervening in the election.  

good gawd, you could criticize the letter and score points if you didn't have that knee jerk urge to make more of it than there is.


----------



## Dante

asterism said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is correct that no one will be prosecuted under the Logan Act however. given what those GOP Senators actually did, the failure to prosecute them doesn't make it any less of an act of sedition against the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> They actually counseled an enemy of the US, they advised them as to how they could ignore our government and go ahead with their weapons plans. They literally told Iran that the Republicans would guarantee the US would take no action.
> 
> Is there precedence for congress going behind the back of our government to aid and abet our enemy in getting a weapon to use against us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California traveled to Iraq in 2002 to support Saddam Hussein and oppose the President.  Later it was uncovered that the Iraqi government paid for the trip (which they deny *wink wink).
> 
> US Saddam paid for lawmakers Iraq trip - USATODAY.com
Click to expand...

Uhm, nowhere does it suggest 'support' for Saddam   

good gawd, you could criticize the trip and score points if you didn't have that knee jerk urge to make more of it than there is.


----------



## Dante

Statistikhengst said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The petition to charge the 47 with treason has jumped from 8,900 when I signed it to 21,900 in just under 2 hours time....
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The petition to charge the 47 with treason, which was at 21,900 just 5 hours ago, is now at 92,600.... it was at 9,800 when I signed it about 8 hours ago...
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.
Click to expand...

I don't support the petition, but 260,732 when all they wanted was 100,000


----------



## Dante

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile, you think they won't lie, cheat and make any agreement worthless?  That they won't obtain them with this worthless agreement in place?  Are you that fucking stupid?
Click to expand...

This is what right wingers and leading conservatives said about Reagan dealing with Soviet Leader Gorbachev


----------



## idb

JimH52 said:


> The repubs may have successfully scuttled out best chance to stop and monitor Iran's nuclear ambitions.  I guess they are pretty proud, but their real joy will come when the only option left is to invade Iran and spill the blood of innocent people.


This time, there will be no 'Coalition Of The Willing'.
It will be all US blood...and maybe a few Sunni pals.


----------



## idb

JoeB131 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly trust President Obama more than 47 NaziCon Senators who hate him to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that wasn't the question I was asking, Chief Running Bull.
> 
> I asked a simple question.  Can we trust the Iranians to keep their end of the agreement?
Click to expand...

What is "their end of the agreement"?


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So calling it an agreement doesn't nullify the main point.
> 
> To all my leftist friends, do you really, really think the Iranians can be trusted to abide by any agreement we make with them?   I don't.  They are doing the bare minimum they have to do to get sanctions lifted.
Click to expand...



We have never trusted nor do with trust either the Russians or the Chinese, and yet, we have made numerous treaties with them.

As for what the Iranians are or are not doing, unless you are actually there on the ground and armed with all of the specs, there is no way for you to know if they are only "doing the bare minimum".

One thing is for sure: a nuclear Iran is a dangerous Iran. If negotiations slow them down another 10 years, I am all for it. Obama is doing the right thing and ultimately, doing Israel a favor.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the other poster can also answer.....but my take on your question is a "maybe".....Certainly NO agreement gives Iran a green light....Certainly war-monger Bibi re-election gives Iran a green light...and Certainly one day Iran will have nukes the same way that Israel does, Pakistan does and North Korea does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you are right.  BUt why does that make getting an agreement we cant enforce now a big priority, I mean other than Obama polishing his presidency?
Click to expand...


You don't know yet if we will be able to enforce it or not. You keep speaking as if you are personally at the bargaining table. Somehow, I think not.


----------



## Statistikhengst

nat4900 said:


> Like it or not (and partially "thanks" to those 47 dimwits who signed the letter) if an agreement is  reached, Obama will probably be awarded another Nobel......Mind you, I don't think he's really earned another one, but Obama may just get it.....(and if he does, he should sincerely thank those tea-sippers in the senate.)



Obama should not have been awarded the nobel prize at that time. It came to him way too early in his presidency and to that point, he had hardly done anything at all that can be considered earthshaking in any way. THAT was a mistake, not because he is not worthy of such an award maybe one day, but the timing was all wrong. The Nobel Peace prize is usually awarded to someone who has worked tirelessly for peace (albeit, sometimes seen as the "enemy" from the other side) for quite a while.


----------



## Statistikhengst

nat4900 said:


> Like it or not (and partially "thanks" to those 47 dimwits who signed the letter) if an agreement is  reached, Obama will probably be awarded another Nobel......Mind you, I don't think he's really earned another one, but Obama may just get it.....(and if he does, he should sincerely thank those tea-sippers in the senate.)



Obama should not have been awarded the nobel prize at that time. It came to him way too early in his presidency and to that point, he had hardly done anything at all that can be considered earthshaking in any way. THAT was a mistake, not because he is not worthy of such an award maybe one day, but the timing was all wrong. The Nobel Peace prize is usually awarded to someone who has worked tirelessly for peace (albeit, sometimes seen as the "enemy" from the other side) for quite a while.


----------



## Statistikhengst

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is evil AND
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're an idiot asshole, all you can do is personal insult with zero facts and less brains.  You're close to being ignored, as you have nothing of value to offer.  Better if you just stayed quiet and let the adults talk.
Click to expand...



What was that again about personal insults?

Physician, heal thyself.


----------



## Statistikhengst

rhodescholar said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ayatollah Khamenei Slams Republican Letter On Iran, Says U.S. Known For 'Backstabbing' *Does Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have a point?  Personally, I think the U.S. is known for a lot of things - and a lot of it BAD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone sane give a flying fuck what that whore bastard mass murderer has to say?  Liberals are so fucking beyond stupid it is astounding; they will suck the cock of anyone or anything, no matter how fucking vile, as long as it is an enemy of the GOP/conservatives/America.
Click to expand...


That was heavy on butthurt, but low on fact.

Pay attention, deal with the issue in the OP, like adults do.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure the other poster can also answer.....but my take on your question is a "maybe".....Certainly NO agreement gives Iran a green light....Certainly war-monger Bibi re-election gives Iran a green light...and Certainly one day Iran will have nukes the same way that Israel does, Pakistan does and North Korea does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you are right.  BUt why does that make getting an agreement we cant enforce now a big priority, I mean other than Obama polishing his presidency?
Click to expand...

Since many would agree that Iran is going to do what they want regardless of any deal, sounds to me like an admission that the motive of those 47 Republican Senators was only to hurt Obama from "polishing his presidency."


----------



## Faun

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile, you think they won't lie, cheat and make any agreement worthless?  That they won't obtain them with this worthless agreement in place?  Are you that fucking stupid?
Click to expand...

So what? All the Republicans did was make the U.S. appear weak and divisive. The message we just sent to the world, not just Iran, is don't make deals with the U.S., we don't keep them.

With all the complaints about Iran not being trustworthy to keep up their end of any deal, we just advertised that it's us who don't keep deals. *We're now the ones who can't be trusted.*

The fucking right will destroy this nation just to make Obama look bad. Just like they did when they cost us our AAA rating.


----------



## Faun

nat4900 said:


> Like it or not (and partially "thanks" to those 47 dimwits who signed the letter) if an agreement is  reached, Obama will probably be awarded another Nobel......Mind you, I don't think he's really earned another one, but Obama may just get it.....(and if he does, he should sincerely thank those tea-sippers in the senate.)


If a deal were to be reached, Iran would likely not have honored it anyway (like NK), only now, they can justifiably blame the U.S.for not feeling confident we wouldn't keep up our end of any such deal. The rabid right just blew a fatal head wound into the credibility of America.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
Click to expand...

We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.

The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.


----------



## Ernie S.

Faun said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without an agreement they will get nukes.  Better to have an agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile, you think they won't lie, cheat and make any agreement worthless?  That they won't obtain them with this worthless agreement in place?  Are you that fucking stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? All the Republicans did was make the U.S. appear weak and divisive. The message we just sent to the world, not just Iran, is don't make deals with the U.S., we don't keep them.
> 
> With all the complaints about Iran not being trustworthy to keep up their end of any deal, we just advertised that it's us who don't keep deals. *We're now the ones who can't be trusted.*
> 
> The fucking right will destroy this nation just to make Obama look bad. Just like they did when they cost us our AAA rating.
Click to expand...

We'll keep a good deal, but we need a good deal first. Let obumbler try to come up with one that Congress will approve.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dante said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The petition to charge the 47 with treason has jumped from 8,900 when I signed it to 21,900 in just under 2 hours time....
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The petition to charge the 47 with treason, which was at 21,900 just 5 hours ago, is now at 92,600.... it was at 9,800 when I signed it about 8 hours ago...
> 
> 
> File charges against the 47 U.S. Senators in violation of The Logan Act in attempting to undermine a nuclear agreement. We the People Your Voice in Our Government
> 
> You can sign up too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't support the petition, but 260,732 when all they wanted was 100,000
Click to expand...


Now 264,000..


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> Like it or not (and partially "thanks" to those 47 dimwits who signed the letter) if an agreement is  reached, Obama will probably be awarded another Nobel......Mind you, I don't think he's really earned another one, but Obama may just get it.....(and if he does, he should sincerely thank those tea-sippers in the senate.)



Well, that would make the Nobel Peace Prize even MORE Meaningless. than it already is.


----------



## JoeB131

Care4all said:


> the Christmas eve crossing the border was during president elect nixon, but in Jan of 69' and february 1969 he was sent in to Cambodia 3 times in which Nixon was the President...



but that's not what Kerry claimed.  Kerry claimed Nixon ordered him to illegal enter Cambodia. Something there is no record of him doing. Oh, yeah, and Nixon wasn't President yet.


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> Suuuure. He didn't remember earning a Bronze Star with Valor.  He remembered the event but just forgot about being under fire ... forgot about his boat getting shot up ... forgot about how it was common for vietcong to open fire after boats hit mines ... forgot about being given a medal ...



Except his boat wasn't shot up and he thought he was given the medal for coming to the aid of another boat that hit a mine.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*
> 
> The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:
> 
> Signatories:
> Richard Shelby (Ala.)
> Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
> Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
> John McCain (Ariz.)
> John Boozman (Ark.)
> Tom Cotton (Ark.)
> Cory Gardner (Colo.)
> Marco Rubio (Fla.)
> Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
> David Perdue (Ga.)
> Mike Crapo (Idaho)
> Jim Risch (Idaho)
> Mark Kirk (Ill.)
> Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
> Joni Ernst (Iowa)
> Pat Roberts (Kansas)
> Jerry Moran (Kansas)
> Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
> Rand Paul (Ky.)
> David Vitter (La.)
> Bill Cassidy (La.)
> Roger Wicker (Miss.)
> Roy Blunt (Mo.)
> Steve Daines (Mont.)
> Deb Fischer (Neb.)
> Ben Sasse (Neb.)
> Dean Heller (Nev.)
> Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
> Richard Burr (N.C.)
> Thom Tillis (N.C.)
> John Hoeven (N.D.)
> Rob Portman (Ohio)
> Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
> James Lankford (Okla.)
> Pat Toomey (Pa.)
> Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
> Tim Scott (S.C.)
> John Thune (S.D.)
> Mike Rounds (S.D.)
> John Cornyn (Texas)
> Ted Cruz (Texas)
> Orin Hatch (Utah)
> Mike Lee (Utah)
> Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
> Ron Johnson (Wis.)
> Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
> John Barrasso (Wyo.)
> 
> *Did not sign:*
> Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
> Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
> Daniel Coats (Ind.)
> Susan Collins (Maine)
> Thad Cochran (Miss.)
> Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
> Bob Corker (Tenn.)
> 
> Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post
> 
> Is your Senator on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  He just guaranteed not getting my vote again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both of mine are on the list and guaranteed my vote.
> One from Florida has my support in future endeavors as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would have gotten your vote anyway. They're gonna lose a lot of votes in the next election. An election where most Senators up for re-election are Republican.
Click to expand...

Hey-hey... Mark Kirk (R-IL) is on the list.

Turban-Durbin (D-IL), not so much.

Close enough for Gubmint work.


----------



## JoeB131

Care4all said:


> wasn't it 150 men saying that? The ''winter Soldiers'' that he met with before testifying?



A lot of whom were liars.  His co-leader of Vietnam Vets Against the War was a clown named Al Hubbard who never set foot in Vietnam.  

Here's the thing. The war in Vietnam was a terrible idea.  But what Kerry and his fellow protestors did was slimy and evil and wrong and not surprisingly, he couldn't run away from it or wash it off 30 years later.


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> You don't know yet if we will be able to enforce it or not. You keep speaking as if you are personally at the bargaining table. Somehow, I think not.



I know we won't be able to enforce it because no one cares about enforcing it. 

Hey remember how the same group of clowns were keen on keeping NOrth Korea from getting nukes?  How'd that work out again?


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> Obama should not have been awarded the nobel prize at that time. It came to him way too early in his presidency and to that point, he had hardly done anything at all that can be considered earthshaking in any way. THAT was a mistake, not because he is not worthy of such an award maybe one day, but the timing was all wrong. The Nobel Peace prize is usually awarded to someone who has worked tirelessly for peace (albeit, sometimes seen as the "enemy" from the other side) for quite a while.



Bullshit.  The Nobel Peace Prize has become a "feel good" prize for a long time. 

Some teenager gets shot in the head for offending her local customs?  Give her a prize. 

Some twit talks about global warming and isn't George W. Bush?  Give him the prize.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.



you think Radical Islam respected THIS Guy?


----------



## ChrisL

Care4all said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who is okay with those insane religious fanatic mullahs who truly believe in a 12th disciple and wish to bring about the end of the world, having any kind of nuclear power is crazy.  End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> Who WANTS them to have nukes??  Did I miss something Chris?
Click to expand...


Mr. Obama . . . apparently.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you think Radical Islam respected THIS Guy?
Click to expand...


I think that they respected him a lot more than the metrosexual, Mr. Obama.    You must admit that the Arabs like to deal with MEN.  I am sure that they had more respect for Mr. Bush than they do for Mr. Obama.  The poster is right.  Obama makes us look weak as a nation.  There is no denying that!


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I think that they respected him a lot more than the metrosexual, Mr. Obama.  You must admit that the Arabs like to deal with MEN. I am sure that they had more respect for Mr. Bush than they do for Mr. Obama. The poster is right. Obama makes us look weak as a nation. There is no denying that!



If you really honestly think that the Arab World cares about "manliness" from a guy like Bush, you are delusional.  

The reason why we look like a weak nation is that we start shit and don't follow through. Bush invaded iraq based on a lie, let the country disintigrate into chaos, then paid a bunch of bribes to the Sunnis to play nice just long enough for us to leave.  

No wonder they threw shoes at his ass.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that they respected him a lot more than the metrosexual, Mr. Obama.  You must admit that the Arabs like to deal with MEN. I am sure that they had more respect for Mr. Bush than they do for Mr. Obama. The poster is right. Obama makes us look weak as a nation. There is no denying that!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you really honestly think that the Arab World cares about "manliness" from a guy like Bush, you are delusional.
> 
> The reason why we look like a weak nation is that we start shit and don't follow through. Bush invaded iraq based on a lie, let the country disintigrate into chaos, then paid a bunch of bribes to the Sunnis to play nice just long enough for us to leave.
> 
> No wonder they threw shoes at his ass.
Click to expand...


Of course they care.  They like that manly man stuff.  He wasn't a good president either, and that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying those men in the Arab world most certainly do care about and respect a "manly" man.  

We look weak as a nation because we have a weak leader.


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.
Click to expand...


I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
Click to expand...


Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
Click to expand...


Well the 47 senators showed it.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuure. He didn't remember earning a Bronze Star with Valor.  He remembered the event but just forgot about being under fire ... forgot about his boat getting shot up ... forgot about how it was common for vietcong to open fire after boats hit mines ... forgot about being given a medal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except his boat wasn't shot up and he thought he was given the medal for coming to the aid of another boat that hit a mine.
Click to expand...

Sure, uh-huh 

His [Thurlow] account was further called into question by a battle damage assessment report on another Swift boat, PCF-51, involved in the March 13 action. The report listed three .30-caliber bullet holes in the superstructure of the 50-foot patrol boat​


----------



## nat4900

Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)

IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????

Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....

I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. obama makes us look like incompetent weaklings. The 47 would prefer to let Iran know that their perception will change very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
Click to expand...


No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.



No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?


----------



## Faun

nat4900 said:


> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.


Not only would they have the upper hand, but our disloyal Republicans just handed Iran a justifiable excuse to not make any deal with the U.S., since we made it crystal clear we can't be trusted. Either way, they would have forged ahead with any nuclear ambitions they already had, but now, we're the bad guys who can't be trusted to keep our word.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
Click to expand...

Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No actually the 47 just made us look divided and weak.  But they sure proved they are more loyal to Israel than the US.
> 
> 
> 
> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
Click to expand...


He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
Click to expand...


If we were smart, we would.  Mark my words, they are going to be SO MUCH trouble for everyone in the world in the future.  Just wait and see.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
Click to expand...


Well, since we are the daddy of the world, I highly doubt that would ever happen.  They all rely and depend on the United States.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> We ARE divided and weak with the current occupant of the Oval Office.
> 
> The US used to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. What obama doesn't get is that our enemies won't fear or respect someone who kisses their ass. All radical Islam respects is superior fire power and strong leadership.
> His negotiating tactics are like negotiating with a man who wants to kill you with a gun and ending up allowing him to stab you in the heart with a blade. He would consider that a win/win situation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
Click to expand...


And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.


----------



## Brain357

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
Click to expand...


What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.
Click to expand...


Yes elected in a state, not nationally.  The whole country elected Obama.  Speak out yes, send a letter to a foreign country no.  They are an embarrassment.


----------



## ChrisL

Iran is run by a bunch of shady nutjobs.  You cannot trust them at all.  They say one thing and do the complete opposite.  

Who do you people think is funding ISIS?  Lol.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were smart, we would.  Mark my words, they are going to be SO MUCH trouble for everyone in the world in the future.  Just wait and see.
Click to expand...

There's no way we can. They reportedly have sites all around their country, many, if not most, underground.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes elected in a state, not nationally.  The whole country elected Obama.  Speak out yes, send a letter to a foreign country no.  They are an embarrassment.
Click to expand...


No, sorry, Obama is the embarrassment for ever even considering to deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  The answer should be a firm NO.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, since we are the daddy of the world, I highly doubt that would ever happen.  They all rely and depend on the United States.
Click to expand...


It can and will happen if we remain so obviously divided.  All these senators did was make us look weak to the whole world.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes elected in a state, not nationally.  The whole country elected Obama.  Speak out yes, send a letter to a foreign country no.  They are an embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, sorry, Obama is the embarrassment for ever even considering to deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  The answer should be a firm NO.
Click to expand...


Yes because there is some other option.  You are a joke.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were smart, we would.  Mark my words, they are going to be SO MUCH trouble for everyone in the world in the future.  Just wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no way we can. They reportedly have sites all around their country, many, if not most, underground.
Click to expand...


I agree with that, but they should be not given a green light.  They should be sanctioned, and we should insist that China and Russia take part in sanctions.  THAT is why sanctions don't work with them.  We need to start getting tough.  No more aid money from the US if you support a nuclear Iran.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.
Click to expand...


Yes to our country.  They don't send notes to foreign leaders telling the world we are weak and divided.


----------



## ChrisL

It's simple really.  Iran does not care about it's people, that much is obvious.  So the only question you need to ask yourself is "what's in it for them?"


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes to our country.  They don't send notes to foreign leaders telling the world we are weak and divided.
Click to expand...


Are you for real?  Of course they do!!!  Lol.    The Iranians are constantly making threats and opening their big mouths!


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Iran is run by a bunch of shady nutjobs.  You cannot trust them at all.  They say one thing and do the complete opposite.
> 
> Who do you people think is funding ISIS?  Lol.



Are you a moron?  You realize they are fighting ISIS right?


----------



## Faun

Brain357 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.
Click to expand...

Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent *the president * of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes to our country.  They don't send notes to foreign leaders telling the world we are weak and divided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you for real?  Of course they do!!!  Lol.    The Iranians are constantly making threats and opening their big mouths!
Click to expand...


No senators shouldn't be sending notes to foreign countries.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent *the president * of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.
Click to expand...


Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes to our country.  They don't send notes to foreign leaders telling the world we are weak and divided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you for real?  Of course they do!!!  Lol.    The Iranians are constantly making threats and opening their big mouths!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No senators shouldn't be sending notes to foreign countries.
Click to expand...


Oh, I see.  I misunderstood your statement.  Anyhow, I don't have a problem with it.  Like I said, Obama is not a dictator and yes, we the people have a right to intervene and have our voices heard on the matter.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were smart, we would.  Mark my words, they are going to be SO MUCH trouble for everyone in the world in the future.  Just wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no way we can. They reportedly have sites all around their country, many, if not most, underground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that, but they should be not given a green light.  They should be sanctioned, and we should insist that China and Russia take part in sanctions.  THAT is why sanctions don't work with them.  We need to start getting tough.  No more aid money from the US if you support a nuclear Iran.
Click to expand...


You realize there are lots of countries involved in negotiations who want an agreement right?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Politico Caucus poll published today: 34% of Republican insiders think that "Teheran Tom" and the gang of 47 really, really fucked up. The poll is not really of Democrats. We are talking about Republicans, here. ..

I'm mobile right now and pasting links is difficult with tapatalk. I'll include the link later.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent *the president * of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!
Click to expand...


Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.


----------



## Lakhota

*Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:

Signatories:
Richard Shelby (Ala.)
Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
John McCain (Ariz.)
John Boozman (Ark.)
Tom Cotton (Ark.)
Cory Gardner (Colo.)
Marco Rubio (Fla.)
Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
David Perdue (Ga.)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Jim Risch (Idaho)
Mark Kirk (Ill.)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Joni Ernst (Iowa)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
Rand Paul (Ky.)
David Vitter (La.)
Bill Cassidy (La.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)
Roy Blunt (Mo.)
Steve Daines (Mont.)
Deb Fischer (Neb.)
Ben Sasse (Neb.)
Dean Heller (Nev.)
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Richard Burr (N.C.)
Thom Tillis (N.C.)
John Hoeven (N.D.)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
James Lankford (Okla.)
Pat Toomey (Pa.)
Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
John Thune (S.D.)
Mike Rounds (S.D.)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Orin Hatch (Utah)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
Ron Johnson (Wis.)
Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
John Barrasso (Wyo.)

*Did not sign:*
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Daniel Coats (Ind.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)

Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post

Is your Senator on the list?


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent *the president * of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!
Click to expand...

Then you should seek to have the Constitution amended. Because as it reads now, the Constitution does not allow the Senators to negotiate treaties with other countries. That's the president's role.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get back to some measure of sanity (maybe)
> 
> IF an agreement is reached stating that Iran will halt her nuclear ambitions for TEN years.......then, if the agreement is breached (and have NO doubt that we WOULD know....we have enough informants on the ground) wouldn't we then be MORE justified in increasing sanctions or even bombing than we are  now??????
> 
> Without ANY agreement, Iran gains the upper hand in doing whatever it wants and can simply state to her citizens that it has tried and the west did not want to compromise.....
> 
> I know that the above does not "appease" the war hawks....but too freakin' bad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were smart, we would.  Mark my words, they are going to be SO MUCH trouble for everyone in the world in the future.  Just wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with that, but they should be not given a green light.  They should be sanctioned, and we should insist that China and Russia take part in sanctions.  THAT is why sanctions don't work with them.  We need to start getting tough.  No more aid money from the US if you support a nuclear Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a jingoistic nut job you must be....."learning" your history from Fox and Breibart.....
> 
> The Persian culture is way more sophisticated than the knee-jerk reaction from war mongers like you sitting in your cozy home asking for others to go kill a bunch of strangers across the globe.
> 
> China and Russia are not relying on our money....and in the case of China, they are "funding" our ill-advised wars.....we can't bully these countries into instilling more sanctions on Iran...PERIOD.
Click to expand...


----------



## nat4900

Let us go back and redefine the true meaning of a "compromise."

In a compromise (an agreement, NOT a treaty) no one really wins, and no one really loses....THAT is the nature of a compromise.

Now, given this recent letter from those 47 dingbats, let's say you were a moderate, western educated Iranian, would you tend to side with the west, or with the Ayathollahs?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran.  That is stupid beyond belief.  Of course Iran would breach any agreements.  You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent *the president * of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.
Click to expand...


By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



Oh, so IOW, you are intimidated by Iran's threats?  Lol.  This figures.  You liberals are a bunch of pussies.


----------



## ChrisL

Lakhota said:


> *Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*
> 
> The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:
> 
> Signatories:
> Richard Shelby (Ala.)
> Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
> Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
> John McCain (Ariz.)
> John Boozman (Ark.)
> Tom Cotton (Ark.)
> Cory Gardner (Colo.)
> Marco Rubio (Fla.)
> Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
> David Perdue (Ga.)
> Mike Crapo (Idaho)
> Jim Risch (Idaho)
> Mark Kirk (Ill.)
> Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
> Joni Ernst (Iowa)
> Pat Roberts (Kansas)
> Jerry Moran (Kansas)
> Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
> Rand Paul (Ky.)
> David Vitter (La.)
> Bill Cassidy (La.)
> Roger Wicker (Miss.)
> Roy Blunt (Mo.)
> Steve Daines (Mont.)
> Deb Fischer (Neb.)
> Ben Sasse (Neb.)
> Dean Heller (Nev.)
> Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
> Richard Burr (N.C.)
> Thom Tillis (N.C.)
> John Hoeven (N.D.)
> Rob Portman (Ohio)
> Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
> James Lankford (Okla.)
> Pat Toomey (Pa.)
> Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
> Tim Scott (S.C.)
> John Thune (S.D.)
> Mike Rounds (S.D.)
> John Cornyn (Texas)
> Ted Cruz (Texas)
> Orin Hatch (Utah)
> Mike Lee (Utah)
> Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
> Ron Johnson (Wis.)
> Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
> John Barrasso (Wyo.)
> 
> *Did not sign:*
> Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
> Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
> Daniel Coats (Ind.)
> Susan Collins (Maine)
> Thad Cochran (Miss.)
> Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
> Bob Corker (Tenn.)
> 
> Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post
> 
> Is your Senator on the list?



Kudos to those who signed the letter.    At least somebody is thinking.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*
> 
> The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:
> 
> Signatories:
> Richard Shelby (Ala.)
> Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
> Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
> John McCain (Ariz.)
> John Boozman (Ark.)
> Tom Cotton (Ark.)
> Cory Gardner (Colo.)
> Marco Rubio (Fla.)
> Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
> David Perdue (Ga.)
> Mike Crapo (Idaho)
> Jim Risch (Idaho)
> Mark Kirk (Ill.)
> Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
> Joni Ernst (Iowa)
> Pat Roberts (Kansas)
> Jerry Moran (Kansas)
> Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
> Rand Paul (Ky.)
> David Vitter (La.)
> Bill Cassidy (La.)
> Roger Wicker (Miss.)
> Roy Blunt (Mo.)
> Steve Daines (Mont.)
> Deb Fischer (Neb.)
> Ben Sasse (Neb.)
> Dean Heller (Nev.)
> Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
> Richard Burr (N.C.)
> Thom Tillis (N.C.)
> John Hoeven (N.D.)
> Rob Portman (Ohio)
> Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
> James Lankford (Okla.)
> Pat Toomey (Pa.)
> Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
> Tim Scott (S.C.)
> John Thune (S.D.)
> Mike Rounds (S.D.)
> John Cornyn (Texas)
> Ted Cruz (Texas)
> Orin Hatch (Utah)
> Mike Lee (Utah)
> Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
> Ron Johnson (Wis.)
> Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
> John Barrasso (Wyo.)
> 
> *Did not sign:*
> Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
> Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
> Daniel Coats (Ind.)
> Susan Collins (Maine)
> Thad Cochran (Miss.)
> Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
> Bob Corker (Tenn.)
> 
> Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post
> 
> Is your Senator on the list?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to those who signed the letter.    At least somebody is thinking.
Click to expand...


Quite a message they sent to all the other countries seeking an agreement with iran.  They insulted our country, Germany, France, Russia, China...


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm, you can't stop them from becoming nuclear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent *the president * of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
Click to expand...


Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> This is what right wingers and leading conservatives said about Reagan dealing with Soviet Leader Gorbachev


true story


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChL10956002  





ChrisL said:


> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!






Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:




> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.



Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials

Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,

Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.

The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.

The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ChrisL said:


> Kudos to those who signed the letter.    At least somebody is thinking.


you misspelled "stinking"


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
Click to expand...


That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.  Even if it doesn't do any good, they will be shown to be correct in the future.


----------



## Brain357

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
Click to expand...


Like I have said, the world will act without us.  These senators just lowered our standing in the world.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent *the president * of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
Click to expand...


What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I have said, the world will act without us.  These senators just lowered our standing in the world.
Click to expand...


Nope, they haven't.  A lot of people are glad they spoke out against this ridiculousness.


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kudos to those who signed the letter.    At least somebody is thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> you misspelled "stinking"
Click to expand...


Yes, we know you are frightened of Iran, so will bow to their wishes and kiss their butts.  Lol.  Typical lib.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.  Even if it doesn't do any good, they will be shown to be correct in the future.
Click to expand...


And they told Germany, UK, France, China, and Russia they are morons for discussing a deal with Iran.  This is why senators don't send letters to other countries.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.  Even if it doesn't do any good, they will be shown to be correct in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they told Germany, UK, France, China, and Russia they are morons for discussing a deal with Iran.  This is why senators don't send letters to other countries.
Click to expand...


They would be correct.    They are being honest and they are right.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I have said, the world will act without us.  These senators just lowered our standing in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they haven't.  A lot of people are glad they spoke out against this ridiculousness.
Click to expand...


Poll I saw said they are a minority.


----------



## ChrisL

We need a leader who has some balls and isn't afraid to stand up to the insane faction in our world instead of trying to appease them.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I have said, the world will act without us.  These senators just lowered our standing in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they haven't.  A lot of people are glad they spoke out against this ridiculousness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll I saw said they are a minority.
Click to expand...


Post it.  Of course, you are untrustworthy.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.  Even if it doesn't do any good, they will be shown to be correct in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And they told Germany, UK, France, China, and Russia they are morons for discussing a deal with Iran.  This is why senators don't send letters to other countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They would be correct.    They are being honest and they are right.
Click to expand...


And our standing in the world has fallen.  Sanctions will mean very little without the support of the rest of the world.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChL10956002
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake. Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I have said, the world will act without us.  These senators just lowered our standing in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they haven't.  A lot of people are glad they spoke out against this ridiculousness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll I saw said they are a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post it.  Of course, you are untrustworthy.
Click to expand...


Only 28% support it.  I expect that to keep dropping.
Poll Americans Think GOP s Iran Letter Was Inappropriate


----------



## nat4900

Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??

Just asking........


----------



## Brain357

nat4900 said:


> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........



That is something to think about...


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> We need a leader who has some balls and isn't afraid to stand up to the insane faction in our world instead of trying to appease them.



Is that what bush was?  Maybe you didn't notice, but that made things worse.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChL10956002  Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Their pissy-assed Teapublican stunt just fully backfired.
> 
> The US Senate has no jurisdiction over    France Russia China and the UK.  Plus Germany is involved in the talks.
> 
> The UNSC will surely act if the spectre of a GOP Presidential win in 2016 looms on the horizon. Only the President can issue a veto of UNSC Resolutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said, the world will act without us.  These senators just lowered our standing in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, they haven't.  A lot of people are glad they spoke out against this ridiculousness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll I saw said they are a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post it.  Of course, you are untrustworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only 28% support it.  I expect that to keep dropping.
> Poll Americans Think GOP s Iran Letter Was Inappropriate
Click to expand...


Why don't you post the entire thing?  Now, this says nothing about how Americans feel about Iran becoming nuclear.  

Nearly 60 percent of Americans have heard at least something about the open letter, and 42 percent say it was inappropriate, while 28 percent find it appropriate and the remainder aren't sure -- a divide similar to views on the invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, which 47 percent of Americans said was inappropriate.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........



I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care.  What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.


----------



## Brain357

nat4900 said:


> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........



They actually sold arms to Iran right?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is something to think about...
Click to expand...


No, HERE is something to think about . . .

Along with setting off a mad race to attain nuclear weapons that would involve Saudi Arabia, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that a nuclear Iran would arm terrorists that would strike at the United States.

This brings to mind the recent Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC. The plan called for setting off weapons of mass destruction.

While there is disagreement on what should or shoudn't be done there is general agreement that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Which raises the question, How would the world change if Iran goes nuclear?

As stated above, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other oil rich states have said they would do whatever they needed to do to acquire nuclear weapons. Imagine, multiple nations becoming nuclear powers overnight. As Secretary Hague said, the proliferation of nations with nuclear weapons would unsettle the world order. It would increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used, stolen, and falling into hands of terrorists.

Can Iran be stopped from attaining nuclear weapons?

Edit:  Oops, forgot the link. Exclusive Analysis Would a Nuclear Capable Iran Change the World - Secure America Now


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I have said, the world will act without us.  These senators just lowered our standing in the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they haven't.  A lot of people are glad they spoke out against this ridiculousness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poll I saw said they are a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post it.  Of course, you are untrustworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only 28% support it.  I expect that to keep dropping.
> Poll Americans Think GOP s Iran Letter Was Inappropriate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you post the entire thing?  Now, this says nothing about how Americans feel about Iran becoming nuclear.
> 
> Nearly 60 percent of Americans have heard at least something about the open letter, and 42 percent say it was inappropriate, while 28 percent find it appropriate and the remainder aren't sure -- a divide similar to views on the invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, which 47 percent of Americans said was inappropriate.
Click to expand...

You said many supported.  You challenged it was a minority so I posted the percent.  You were wrong as usual.

Gonna get worse with more coverage.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a leader who has some balls and isn't afraid to stand up to the insane faction in our world instead of trying to appease them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what bush was?  Maybe you didn't notice, but that made things worse.
Click to expand...


That is why I think, if the US gets involved with another country's problems, we reserve the right to occupy such country/countries for as long as we see fit.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, they haven't.  A lot of people are glad they spoke out against this ridiculousness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poll I saw said they are a minority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Post it.  Of course, you are untrustworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only 28% support it.  I expect that to keep dropping.
> Poll Americans Think GOP s Iran Letter Was Inappropriate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you post the entire thing?  Now, this says nothing about how Americans feel about Iran becoming nuclear.
> 
> Nearly 60 percent of Americans have heard at least something about the open letter, and 42 percent say it was inappropriate, while 28 percent find it appropriate and the remainder aren't sure -- a divide similar to views on the invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, which 47 percent of Americans said was inappropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said many supported.  You challenged it was a minority so I posted the percent.  You were wrong as usual.
> 
> Gonna get worse with more coverage.
Click to expand...


Those are people who don't think the letter itself was a good idea.  It says nothing about how they actually feel about Iran getting nuclear power, and if they are intelligent and educated Americans, they know that it is a terrible idea.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is something to think about...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, HERE is something to think about . . .
> 
> Along with setting off a mad race to attain nuclear weapons that would involve Saudi Arabia, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that a nuclear Iran would arm terrorists that would strike at the United States.
> 
> This brings to mind the recent Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC. The plan called for setting off weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> While there is disagreement on what should or shoudn't be done there is general agreement that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
> 
> Which raises the question, How would the world change if Iran goes nuclear?
> 
> As stated above, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other oil rich states have said they would do whatever they needed to do to acquire nuclear weapons. Imagine, multiple nations becoming nuclear powers overnight. As Secretary Hague said, the proliferation of nations with nuclear weapons would unsettle the world order. It would increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used, stolen, and falling into hands of terrorists.
> 
> Can Iran be stopped from attaining nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...


And your plan is?  Send a letter to Iran lowering our standing in the world?  Yes that will help.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a leader who has some balls and isn't afraid to stand up to the insane faction in our world instead of trying to appease them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what bush was?  Maybe you didn't notice, but that made things worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why I think, if the US gets involved with another country's problems, we reserve the right to occupy such country/countries for as long as we see fit.
Click to expand...


Doesn't work and we can't afford it.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poll I saw said they are a minority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Post it.  Of course, you are untrustworthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only 28% support it.  I expect that to keep dropping.
> Poll Americans Think GOP s Iran Letter Was Inappropriate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you post the entire thing?  Now, this says nothing about how Americans feel about Iran becoming nuclear.
> 
> Nearly 60 percent of Americans have heard at least something about the open letter, and 42 percent say it was inappropriate, while 28 percent find it appropriate and the remainder aren't sure -- a divide similar to views on the invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, which 47 percent of Americans said was inappropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said many supported.  You challenged it was a minority so I posted the percent.  You were wrong as usual.
> 
> Gonna get worse with more coverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are people who don't think the letter itself was a good idea.  It says nothing about how they actually feel about Iran getting nuclear power, and if they are intelligent and educated Americans, they know that it is a terrible idea.
Click to expand...


We were discussing what people thought of the letter.  Try to keep up.


----------



## ChrisL

Let's take a look at some real in-depth polling statistics . . . since most people don't click on my links or bother to read the material, I took the liberty of posting it for you all.  

Iran

*NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll* conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). March 1-5, 2015. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide.

.

*"And, thinking about Iran: As you may know, the United States is currently in negotiations with Iran that would limit, for at least ten years, Iran's ability to produce nuclear material. The deal would not end Iran's nuclear program, but would delay Iran's ability to produce enough materials to make nuclear weapons. In return, the United States and other Western nations would ease economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iran, and would eventually allow Iran to use nuclear power for other purposes, like energy. Do you think that this agreement will make a real difference or will not make a real difference in preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons?"*

.

*Will
make a real
difference* *Will not
make a real
difference* *Unsure*
% % %
3/1-5/15

24 71 5


*Gallup Poll*. Feb. 8-11, 2015. N=837 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

.

*"Next, I'd like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. ... What is your overall opinion of Iran? Is it very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?"*

.

*Favorable* *Unfavorable* *No opinion*
% % %
2/8-11/15

11 84 6
2/6-9/14

12 84 4
2/7-10/13

9 87 4
.

*"Next, I am going to read you a list of possible threats to the vital interests of the United States in the next 10 years. For each one, please tell me if you see this as a critical threat, an important but not critical threat, or not an important threat at all. ... Development of nuclear weapons by Iran."*

.

*Critical* *Important* *Not
important* *Unsure*
% % % %
2/8-11/15

77 16 5 2
2/6-9/14

76 18 4 2
2/7-10/13

83 16 1 -


*CBS News/New York Times Poll*. June 20-22, 2014. N=1,009 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.

.

*"Do you favor or oppose the United States working with Iran in a limited capacity in order to try and resolve the situation in Iraq?"*

.

*Favor* *Oppose* *Unsure/
No answer*
% % %
6/20-22/14

53 39 8


*Gallup Poll*. March 22-23, 2014. N=1,012 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 4.

.

*"For each of the following countries, please say whether you consider it an ally of the United States, friendly but not an ally, unfriendly, or an enemy of the United States. How about Iran?"*

.

*An ally* *Friendly but
not an ally* *Unfriendly* *An enemy* *Unsure*
% % % % %
3/22-23/14

2 10 41 41 6
9/15-16/13

2 8 38 45 8
6/1-4/13

2 8 34 51 5
5/18-21/00

3 14 44 34 5


*CNN/ORC Poll*. Nov. 18-20, 2013. N=843 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

.

*"As you may know, the U.S. and other countries have imposed strict economic sanctions against Iran while that country has nuclear facilities which could eventually allow it to produce its own nuclear weapons. Would you favor or oppose an interim deal that would ease some of those economic sanctions and in exchange require Iran to accept major restrictions on its nuclear program but not end it completely and submit to greater international inspection of its nuclear facilities?"*

.

*Favor* *Oppose* *Unsure*
% % %
ALL

56 39 5
Democrats

66 27 8
Independents

55 41 4
Republicans

45 51 4



*ABC News/Washington Post Poll*. Nov. 14-17, 2013. N=1,006 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

.

*"Thinking now about the situation with Iran: Would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?"*

.

*Support* *Oppose* *Unsure*
% % %
11/14-17/13

64 30 7
.

*"How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"*

.

*Very
confident* *Somewhat
confident* *Not so
confident* *Not confident
at all* *Unsure*
% % % % %
11/14-17/13

4 32 27 34 3


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Post it.  Of course, you are untrustworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only 28% support it.  I expect that to keep dropping.
> Poll Americans Think GOP s Iran Letter Was Inappropriate
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you post the entire thing?  Now, this says nothing about how Americans feel about Iran becoming nuclear.
> 
> Nearly 60 percent of Americans have heard at least something about the open letter, and 42 percent say it was inappropriate, while 28 percent find it appropriate and the remainder aren't sure -- a divide similar to views on the invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, which 47 percent of Americans said was inappropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said many supported.  You challenged it was a minority so I posted the percent.  You were wrong as usual.
> 
> Gonna get worse with more coverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are people who don't think the letter itself was a good idea.  It says nothing about how they actually feel about Iran getting nuclear power, and if they are intelligent and educated Americans, they know that it is a terrible idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were discussing what people thought of the letter.  Try to keep up.
Click to expand...


I am not just talking about the letter, but the idea behind the letter.  Try to think outside the box and party politics.


----------



## ChrisL

Just keep in mind, dummies, that a nuclear Iran means a lot of changes in the ME, and NONE of them good.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only 28% support it.  I expect that to keep dropping.
> Poll Americans Think GOP s Iran Letter Was Inappropriate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you post the entire thing?  Now, this says nothing about how Americans feel about Iran becoming nuclear.
> 
> Nearly 60 percent of Americans have heard at least something about the open letter, and 42 percent say it was inappropriate, while 28 percent find it appropriate and the remainder aren't sure -- a divide similar to views on the invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, which 47 percent of Americans said was inappropriate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said many supported.  You challenged it was a minority so I posted the percent.  You were wrong as usual.
> 
> Gonna get worse with more coverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are people who don't think the letter itself was a good idea.  It says nothing about how they actually feel about Iran getting nuclear power, and if they are intelligent and educated Americans, they know that it is a terrible idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were discussing what people thought of the letter.  Try to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not just talking about the letter, but the idea behind the letter.  Try to think outside the box and party politics.
Click to expand...


Then you don't follow a conversation very well. But I guess since you were wrong you are jumping around to hide that.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Just keep in mind, dummies, that a nuclear Iran means a lot of changes in the ME, and NONE of them good.



And you want to do what?


----------



## ChrisL

Here is the kind of insanity that is Iran.  THESE are the people that are going to acquire nuclear power with OUR graces, thanks to Mr. Obama.  

The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today

^^^

They really believe this shit and won't hesitate to try to bring it on.  This is what should be of concern to everyone!  Barack Obama is gambling with world security.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you post the entire thing?  Now, this says nothing about how Americans feel about Iran becoming nuclear.
> 
> Nearly 60 percent of Americans have heard at least something about the open letter, and 42 percent say it was inappropriate, while 28 percent find it appropriate and the remainder aren't sure -- a divide similar to views on the invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, which 47 percent of Americans said was inappropriate.
> 
> 
> 
> You said many supported.  You challenged it was a minority so I posted the percent.  You were wrong as usual.
> 
> Gonna get worse with more coverage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those are people who don't think the letter itself was a good idea.  It says nothing about how they actually feel about Iran getting nuclear power, and if they are intelligent and educated Americans, they know that it is a terrible idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were discussing what people thought of the letter.  Try to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not just talking about the letter, but the idea behind the letter.  Try to think outside the box and party politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you don't follow a conversation very well. But I guess since you were wrong you are jumping around to hide that.
Click to expand...


Obviously, you are just another internet idiot who does not understand just how serious a matter this is.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep in mind, dummies, that a nuclear Iran means a lot of changes in the ME, and NONE of them good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to do what?
Click to expand...


Stay out of any kind of nuclear deals with Iran.


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



What do YOU think a nuclear Iran is capable of?  Do you know about their widespread beliefs (not just with the imams/mullahs but also amongst a lot of the people) of a 12th imam?  Do you know the conditions that they believe are necessary in order for their 12th imam to come?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep in mind, dummies, that a nuclear Iran means a lot of changes in the ME, and NONE of them good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to do what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay out of any kind of nuclear deals with Iran.
Click to expand...

You are not the POTUS, Tehran Tom and the traitors are not the POTUS
This is the POTUS


----------



## ChrisL

From my link in post #1618

First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.

The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ChrisL said:


> What do YOU think a nuclear Iran is capable of?  Do you know about their widespread beliefs (not just with the imams/mullahs but also amongst a lot of the people) of a 12th imam?  Do you know the conditions that they believe are necessary in order for their 12th imam to come?



Let me guess you are going to deign to "school me " .....


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Here is the kind of insanity that is Iran.  THESE are the people that are going to acquire nuclear power with OUR graces, thanks to Mr. Obama.
> 
> The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> ^^^
> 
> They really believe this shit and won't hesitate to try to bring it on.  This is what should be of concern to everyone!  Barack Obama is gambling with world security.



An agreement keeps them from going nuclear. And it's not obama, there are many countries in the negotiations.  And the senators insulted all of them.


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep in mind, dummies, that a nuclear Iran means a lot of changes in the ME, and NONE of them good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to do what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay out of any kind of nuclear deals with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not the POTUS, Tehran Tom and the traitors are not the POTUS
> This is the POTUS
Click to expand...


Like I've said, I'm expressing my agreement with the senators and the thoughts behind their letter.  This is a very serious matter, way beyond your silly partisan politics.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> From my link in post #1618
> 
> First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.
> 
> The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.



Is that all true for Pakistan too?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the kind of insanity that is Iran.  THESE are the people that are going to acquire nuclear power with OUR graces, thanks to Mr. Obama.
> 
> The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> ^^^
> 
> They really believe this shit and won't hesitate to try to bring it on.  This is what should be of concern to everyone!  Barack Obama is gambling with world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An agreement keeps them from going nuclear. And it's not obama, there are many countries in the negotiations.  And the senators insulted all of them.
Click to expand...


Good.  They are obviously really stupid and deserve to be insulted.  Bunch of idiots.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my link in post #1618
> 
> First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.
> 
> The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all true for Pakistan too?
Click to expand...


Pakistan has a much more secular type of governing body than does Iran.  There are big differences, but obviously you have no idea what you're babbling on about.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep in mind, dummies, that a nuclear Iran means a lot of changes in the ME, and NONE of them good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to do what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay out of any kind of nuclear deals with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not the POTUS, Tehran Tom and the traitors are not the POTUS
> This is the POTUS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I've said, I'm expressing my agreement with the senators and the thoughts behind their letter.  This is a very serious matter, way beyond your silly partisan politics.
Click to expand...


Actually it is partisan politics that the senators took way too far.  They embarrassed us to the world.


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Constitutionally, their role is to advise and consent *the president * of treaties the president seeks to forge with other nations. They have no authority to interfere with treaties by communicating with foreign nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
Click to expand...


I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do YOU think a nuclear Iran is capable of?  Do you know about their widespread beliefs (not just with the imams/mullahs but also amongst a lot of the people) of a 12th imam?  Do you know the conditions that they believe are necessary in order for their 12th imam to come?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me guess you are going to deign to "school me " .....
Click to expand...


I don't think that's possible.  Not everyone can be helped, unfortunately.  Partisan politics is more important to some of you than actual events that WILL change the world and not for the better.  But you can go on kissing your leader's bum.  Lol.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my link in post #1618
> 
> First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.
> 
> The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all true for Pakistan too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pakistan has a much more secular type of governing body than does Iran.  There are big differences, but obviously you have no idea what you're babbling on about.
Click to expand...


Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep in mind, dummies, that a nuclear Iran means a lot of changes in the ME, and NONE of them good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to do what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stay out of any kind of nuclear deals with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not the POTUS, Tehran Tom and the traitors are not the POTUS
> This is the POTUS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I've said, I'm expressing my agreement with the senators and the thoughts behind their letter.  This is a very serious matter, way beyond your silly partisan politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is partisan politics that the senators took way too far.  They embarrassed us to the world.
Click to expand...


No, they are the only ones who have given this horrible situation any kind of thought.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the kind of insanity that is Iran.  THESE are the people that are going to acquire nuclear power with OUR graces, thanks to Mr. Obama.
> 
> The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> ^^^
> 
> They really believe this shit and won't hesitate to try to bring it on.  This is what should be of concern to everyone!  Barack Obama is gambling with world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An agreement keeps them from going nuclear. And it's not obama, there are many countries in the negotiations.  And the senators insulted all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.  They are obviously really stupid and deserve to be insulted.  Bunch of idiots.
Click to expand...


Spoken like a child.  Well done it shows how childish the senators were.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my link in post #1618
> 
> First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.
> 
> The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all true for Pakistan too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pakistan has a much more secular type of governing body than does Iran.  There are big differences, but obviously you have no idea what you're babbling on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
Click to expand...


Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the kind of insanity that is Iran.  THESE are the people that are going to acquire nuclear power with OUR graces, thanks to Mr. Obama.
> 
> The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> ^^^
> 
> They really believe this shit and won't hesitate to try to bring it on.  This is what should be of concern to everyone!  Barack Obama is gambling with world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An agreement keeps them from going nuclear. And it's not obama, there are many countries in the negotiations.  And the senators insulted all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.  They are obviously really stupid and deserve to be insulted.  Bunch of idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a child.  Well done it shows how childish the senators were.
Click to expand...


Look, you are the one who is childish.  All you care about is agreeing with Obama, even when he is dead wrong.  THAT is the epitome of childishness, not being able to assess a situation on your own and believing what your leader tells you.    I think everyone who is not a stupid liberal can see that quite clearly.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to do what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stay out of any kind of nuclear deals with Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are not the POTUS, Tehran Tom and the traitors are not the POTUS
> This is the POTUS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I've said, I'm expressing my agreement with the senators and the thoughts behind their letter.  This is a very serious matter, way beyond your silly partisan politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is partisan politics that the senators took way too far.  They embarrassed us to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are the only ones who have given this horrible situation any kind of thought.
Click to expand...


Embarrassing us, lowering our standing in the world, insulting our allies....  That is not thought.  That is childish stupidly.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
Click to expand...


I think we ALL know what those wishes are.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my link in post #1618
> 
> First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.
> 
> The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all true for Pakistan too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pakistan has a much more secular type of governing body than does Iran.  There are big differences, but obviously you have no idea what you're babbling on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.
Click to expand...


So no they don't.  Thank you.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stay out of any kind of nuclear deals with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> You are not the POTUS, Tehran Tom and the traitors are not the POTUS
> This is the POTUS
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I've said, I'm expressing my agreement with the senators and the thoughts behind their letter.  This is a very serious matter, way beyond your silly partisan politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually it is partisan politics that the senators took way too far.  They embarrassed us to the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, they are the only ones who have given this horrible situation any kind of thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Embarrassing us, lowering our standing in the world, insulting our allies....  That is not thought.  That is childish stupidly.
Click to expand...


Talking about Obama again, eh?    Seriously, you just described him to a T.    Ha ha!


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we ALL know what those wishes are.
Click to expand...


And you think that Obama has a desire to fulfill those wishes (whatever they are) because?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my link in post #1618
> 
> First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.
> 
> The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all true for Pakistan too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pakistan has a much more secular type of governing body than does Iran.  There are big differences, but obviously you have no idea what you're babbling on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no they don't.  Thank you.
Click to expand...


What does the Taliban have to do with Iran and the crazy mullahs obtaining nuclear power?  Please elaborate because you aren't making any sense and you are jumping all over the place, just like you do when your ass has been handed to you on any of the gun threads.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the kind of insanity that is Iran.  THESE are the people that are going to acquire nuclear power with OUR graces, thanks to Mr. Obama.
> 
> The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> ^^^
> 
> They really believe this shit and won't hesitate to try to bring it on.  This is what should be of concern to everyone!  Barack Obama is gambling with world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An agreement keeps them from going nuclear. And it's not obama, there are many countries in the negotiations.  And the senators insulted all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.  They are obviously really stupid and deserve to be insulted.  Bunch of idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a child.  Well done it shows how childish the senators were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you are the one who is childish.  All you care about is agreeing with Obama, even when he is dead wrong.  THAT is the epitome of childishness, not being able to assess a situation on your own and believing what your leader tells you.    I think everyone who is not a stupid liberal can see that quite clearly.
Click to expand...


Well the senators have very little support and it will keep dropping.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we ALL know what those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think that Obama has a desire to fulfill those wishes (whatever they are) because?
Click to expand...


I don't think he has a wish to fulfill their desires, I just think he is an idiot who is all about appeasing the enemy, just like a liberal.  A pussy.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that all true for Pakistan too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan has a much more secular type of governing body than does Iran.  There are big differences, but obviously you have no idea what you're babbling on about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no they don't.  Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Taliban have to do with Iran and the crazy mullahs obtaining nuclear power?  Please elaborate because you aren't making any sense and you are jumping all over the place, just like you do when your ass has been handed to you on any of the gun threads.
Click to expand...


My point is that Pakistan is Moslem and much less stable.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the kind of insanity that is Iran.  THESE are the people that are going to acquire nuclear power with OUR graces, thanks to Mr. Obama.
> 
> The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> ^^^
> 
> They really believe this shit and won't hesitate to try to bring it on.  This is what should be of concern to everyone!  Barack Obama is gambling with world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An agreement keeps them from going nuclear. And it's not obama, there are many countries in the negotiations.  And the senators insulted all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good.  They are obviously really stupid and deserve to be insulted.  Bunch of idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a child.  Well done it shows how childish the senators were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you are the one who is childish.  All you care about is agreeing with Obama, even when he is dead wrong.  THAT is the epitome of childishness, not being able to assess a situation on your own and believing what your leader tells you.    I think everyone who is not a stupid liberal can see that quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the senators have very little support and it will keep dropping.
Click to expand...


I don't think so.  Once more people have had time to actually think about what a nuclear Iran means (with OUR blessings), they will totally wake up and realize what a horrible idea it is.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we ALL know what those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think that Obama has a desire to fulfill those wishes (whatever they are) because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he has a wish to fulfill their desires, I just think he is an idiot who is all about appeasing the enemy, just like a liberal.  A pussy.
Click to expand...


And all the other countries in the world except israel.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan has a much more secular type of governing body than does Iran.  There are big differences, but obviously you have no idea what you're babbling on about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no they don't.  Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Taliban have to do with Iran and the crazy mullahs obtaining nuclear power?  Please elaborate because you aren't making any sense and you are jumping all over the place, just like you do when your ass has been handed to you on any of the gun threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that Pakistan is Moslem and much less stable.
Click to expand...


That doesn't have anything to do with Iran, as Iran is RUN by crazy mullahs.  The crazies are ALREADY in charge there.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> An agreement keeps them from going nuclear. And it's not obama, there are many countries in the negotiations.  And the senators insulted all of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  They are obviously really stupid and deserve to be insulted.  Bunch of idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a child.  Well done it shows how childish the senators were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you are the one who is childish.  All you care about is agreeing with Obama, even when he is dead wrong.  THAT is the epitome of childishness, not being able to assess a situation on your own and believing what your leader tells you.    I think everyone who is not a stupid liberal can see that quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the senators have very little support and it will keep dropping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Once more people have had time to actually think about what a nuclear Iran means (with OUR blessings), they will totally wake up and realize what a horrible idea it is.
Click to expand...


And what would you do if not an agreement?  Netanyahu had nothing to offer.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think we ALL know what those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think that Obama has a desire to fulfill those wishes (whatever they are) because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he has a wish to fulfill their desires, I just think he is an idiot who is all about appeasing the enemy, just like a liberal.  A pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all the other countries in the world except israel.
Click to expand...


You keep on kissing butt.  In a few years, you'll see.  It's going to be World War III.  Just wait and see.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  They are obviously really stupid and deserve to be insulted.  Bunch of idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a child.  Well done it shows how childish the senators were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you are the one who is childish.  All you care about is agreeing with Obama, even when he is dead wrong.  THAT is the epitome of childishness, not being able to assess a situation on your own and believing what your leader tells you.    I think everyone who is not a stupid liberal can see that quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the senators have very little support and it will keep dropping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Once more people have had time to actually think about what a nuclear Iran means (with OUR blessings), they will totally wake up and realize what a horrible idea it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what would you do if not an agreement?  Netanyahu had nothing to offer.
Click to expand...


Say Hell No!  We do not approve of a nuclear Iran.  Simple really.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no they don't.  Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Taliban have to do with Iran and the crazy mullahs obtaining nuclear power?  Please elaborate because you aren't making any sense and you are jumping all over the place, just like you do when your ass has been handed to you on any of the gun threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My point is that Pakistan is Moslem and much less stable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't have anything to do with Iran, as Iran is RUN by crazy mullahs.  The crazies are ALREADY in charge there.
Click to expand...


When was the last time the crazies attacked someone?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a child.  Well done it shows how childish the senators were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you are the one who is childish.  All you care about is agreeing with Obama, even when he is dead wrong.  THAT is the epitome of childishness, not being able to assess a situation on your own and believing what your leader tells you.    I think everyone who is not a stupid liberal can see that quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the senators have very little support and it will keep dropping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Once more people have had time to actually think about what a nuclear Iran means (with OUR blessings), they will totally wake up and realize what a horrible idea it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what would you do if not an agreement?  Netanyahu had nothing to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say Hell No!  We do not approve of a nuclear Iran.  Simple really.
Click to expand...


So you have no plan either.  Shocking.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I don't have a problem with it, since I think the president is making a horrible mistake.  Someone needs to step up!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
Click to expand...


Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?  Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion?    What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we ALL know what those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you think that Obama has a desire to fulfill those wishes (whatever they are) because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he has a wish to fulfill their desires, I just think he is an idiot who is all about appeasing the enemy, just like a liberal.  A pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all the other countries in the world except israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep on kissing butt.  In a few years, you'll see.  It's going to be World War III.  Just wait and see.
Click to expand...


I'm sure you would love that.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you are the one who is childish.  All you care about is agreeing with Obama, even when he is dead wrong.  THAT is the epitome of childishness, not being able to assess a situation on your own and believing what your leader tells you.    I think everyone who is not a stupid liberal can see that quite clearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the senators have very little support and it will keep dropping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Once more people have had time to actually think about what a nuclear Iran means (with OUR blessings), they will totally wake up and realize what a horrible idea it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what would you do if not an agreement?  Netanyahu had nothing to offer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say Hell No!  We do not approve of a nuclear Iran.  Simple really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you have no plan either.  Shocking.
Click to expand...


There is no plan, just keep sanctioning them or bomb them.  Those are the choices that have to be made for world peace.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we ALL know what those wishes are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that Obama has a desire to fulfill those wishes (whatever they are) because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think he has a wish to fulfill their desires, I just think he is an idiot who is all about appeasing the enemy, just like a liberal.  A pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And all the other countries in the world except israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep on kissing butt.  In a few years, you'll see.  It's going to be World War III.  Just wait and see.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure you would love that.
Click to expand...


This is typical of you.  No content in your responses, just a bunch of crap.  Your mouth is like a toilet.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  They are obviously really stupid and deserve to be insulted.  Bunch of idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a child.  Well done it shows how childish the senators were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you are the one who is childish.  All you care about is agreeing with Obama, even when he is dead wrong.  THAT is the epitome of childishness, not being able to assess a situation on your own and believing what your leader tells you.    I think everyone who is not a stupid liberal can see that quite clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the senators have very little support and it will keep dropping.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think so.  Once more people have had time to actually think about what a nuclear Iran means (with OUR blessings), they will totally wake up and realize what a horrible idea it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what would you do if not an agreement?  Netanyahu had nothing to offer.
Click to expand...


Notice that you have YET to negate anything I've claimed.    That is because I am correct in that a nuclear Iran is a terrible idea.  You cannot argue against that though, can you?


----------



## ChrisL

So, the liberal answer to a nuclear Iran is just go along with it.  Ha-ha!    They know nothing of some of the nasty things the United States has had to do and will continue to do in the name of world security.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> So, the liberal answer to a nuclear Iran is just go along with it.  Ha-ha!    They know nothing of some of the nasty things the United States has had to do and will continue to do in the name of world security.



No they want an agreement.  The right has no plan.  They want Iran to continue down the to a nuke.


----------



## ChrisL

What liberals need to realize is that you cannot "deal" with insanity.  End of story.  If we allow Iran to become nuclear, things in the ME are going to get much MUCH worse than they are now.  Consider the fact that Iran intentionally upsets the functionality (economic wise, etc.) of other countries in order to provoke them.  The people who are in charge of Iran are religious fanatics who hope for the mayhem and destruction in the middle east, along with the destruction of Israel ( the one force they believe prevents the arrival of the 12th imam) in order for their "prophet" to make an appearance.  And liberals want to go along with a nuclear program for Iran.  Good Lord, could anything be more ignorant?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.

And:
*Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: Reuters/Ipsos poll. *BY MATT SPETALNICK.  WASHINGTON Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49pm EST


_*AP-GfK Poll. Jan. 17-21, 2014. Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove of the interim agreement reached between Iran and six world powers that is designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program?*_
*Total approve*: 60 percent.       *Total disapprove:* 36 percent


It's been very consistent since the negotiations began in 2013:


ChrL 10956880 





ChrisL said:


> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.



This University of Maryland Poll says you are wrong:

Poll Majority of Americans Back Nuke Deal The Iran Primer

*Poll: Majority of Americans Back Nuke Deal*
March 3, 2015 | 12:30pm



> .  _The majority of Americans favor a potential nuclear deal with Iran, according to a new survey by Shibley Telhami and Steven Kull in the Program for Public Consultation and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the _*University of Maryland*_. More than 60 percent of respondents support a deal that would limit Iran’s enrichment capacity and impose inspections in exchange for lifting some sanctions. The poll was conducted Feb. 19-25, 2015, with a sample of 710 adults.The following are excerpted key findings from the poll._
> 
> "In this survey a representative sample of Americans were presented the two primary options that have dominated this debate:
> 
> ·For the US to continue to pursue an agreement that would accept some enrichment by Iran, but with substantial limits that would preclude Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and intrusive inspections to ensure those limits are met, in exchange for the lifting of some sanctions.
> ·For the US to not accept any Iranian enrichment. Instead, the US would continue trying to get other nations to impose new economic sanctions in an effort to persuade Iran to cease enrichment completely.
> 
> While majorities found arguments for both options at least somewhat convincing, when asked to make their final recommendation, a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents. The alternative of increasing sanctions in an effort to get Iran to stop all uranium enrichment was endorsed by 36%."
> 
> 
> "Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents all made this same judgment. Republicans chose continuing negotiations by 61 to 35%, while Democrats favored it by 66 to 32%. A relatively more modest majority of Independents favored a deal by 54 to 42%.
> 
> 
> This response was essentially the same as when PPC took respondents through the exact same process and found 61% favored a deal and 35% favored pursuing sanctions. Partisan variations were not significantly different. In the current survey, among the 9% of the sample who identified themselves as very sympathetic to the Tea Party, a plurality of 46% favored pursuing a deal with 41% opposed. Those somewhat sympathetic to the Tea Party were no different from the sample as a whole.



Do you believe in subscribing to facts?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the liberal answer to a nuclear Iran is just go along with it.  Ha-ha!    They know nothing of some of the nasty things the United States has had to do and will continue to do in the name of world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they want an agreement.  The right has no plan.  They want Iran to continue down the to a nuke.
Click to expand...


I like your signature.  Little do you realize that you are a part of the far left.    Against constitutional rights for citizens but fully supportive of a nuclear Iran.  Now if that's not crazy, I don't know what is!  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> "a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.
> 
> And:
> *Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: Reuters/Ipsos poll. *BY MATT SPETALNICK.  WASHINGTON Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49pm EST
> 
> 
> _*AP-GfK Poll. Jan. 17-21, 2014. Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove of the interim agreement reached between Iran and six world powers that is designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program?*_
> *Total approve*: 60 percent.       *Total disapprove:* 36 percent
> 
> 
> It's been very consistent since the negotiations bean in 2013:
> 
> 
> ChrL 10956880
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This University of Maryland Poll says you are wrong:
> 
> Poll Majority of Americans Back Nuke Deal The Iran Primer
> 
> *Poll: Majority of Americans Back Nuke Deal*
> March 3, 2015 | 12:30pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  _The majority of Americans favor a potential nuclear deal with Iran, according to a new survey by Shibley Telhami and Steven Kull in the Program for Public Consultation and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the _*University of Maryland*_. More than 60 percent of respondents support a deal that would limit Iran’s enrichment capacity and impose inspections in exchange for lifting some sanctions. The poll was conducted Feb. 19-25, 2015, with a sample of 710 adults.The following are excerpted key findings from the poll._
> 
> "In this survey a representative sample of Americans were presented the two primary options that have dominated this debate:
> 
> ·For the US to continue to pursue an agreement that would accept some enrichment by Iran, but with substantial limits that would preclude Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and intrusive inspections to ensure those limits are met, in exchange for the lifting of some sanctions.
> ·For the US to not accept any Iranian enrichment. Instead, the US would continue trying to get other nations to impose new economic sanctions in an effort to persuade Iran to cease enrichment completely.
> 
> While majorities found arguments for both options at least somewhat convincing, when asked to make their final recommendation, a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents. The alternative of increasing sanctions in an effort to get Iran to stop all uranium enrichment was endorsed by 36%."
> 
> 
> "Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents all made this same judgment. Republicans chose continuing negotiations by 61 to 35%, while Democrats favored it by 66 to 32%. A relatively more modest majority of Independents favored a deal by 54 to 42%.
> 
> 
> This response was essentially the same as when PPC took respondents through the exact same process and found 61% favored a deal and 35% favored pursuing sanctions. Partisan variations were not significantly different. In the current survey, among the 9% of the sample who identified themselves as very sympathetic to the Tea Party, a plurality of 46% favored pursuing a deal with 41% opposed. Those somewhat sympathetic to the Tea Party were no different from the sample as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in subscribing to facts?
Click to expand...


I already posted a more in-depth poll which reveals that Americans are against a nuclear Iran.  Do you really think most Americans are okay with this?  You would be wrong.  Most Americans do not want to see Iran become a nuclear power because it is the epitome of insanity.


----------



## kiwiman127

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pakistan has a much more secular type of governing body than does Iran.  There are big differences, but obviously you have no idea what you're babbling on about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no they don't.  Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Taliban have to do with Iran and the crazy mullahs obtaining nuclear power?  Please elaborate because you aren't making any sense and you are jumping all over the place, just like you do when your ass has been handed to you on any of the gun threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that Pakistan is Moslem and much less stable.
Click to expand...


I agree, with the strength of the Taliban presence in Pakistan, Pakistan is much more volatile.  It's a very scary scenario being as Pakistan isn't working on a nuclear program, they already has nuclear weapons.  The Taliban have been proven to have friends within the Pakistani government.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> "a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.
> 
> And:
> *Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: Reuters/Ipsos poll. *BY MATT SPETALNICK.  WASHINGTON Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49pm EST
> 
> 
> _*AP-GfK Poll. Jan. 17-21, 2014. Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove of the interim agreement reached between Iran and six world powers that is designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program?*_
> *Total approve*: 60 percent.       *Total disapprove:* 36 percent
> 
> 
> It's been very consistent since the negotiations began in 2013:
> 
> 
> ChrL 10956880
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This University of Maryland Poll says you are wrong:
> 
> Poll Majority of Americans Back Nuke Deal The Iran Primer
> 
> *Poll: Majority of Americans Back Nuke Deal*
> March 3, 2015 | 12:30pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  _The majority of Americans favor a potential nuclear deal with Iran, according to a new survey by Shibley Telhami and Steven Kull in the Program for Public Consultation and the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the _*University of Maryland*_. More than 60 percent of respondents support a deal that would limit Iran’s enrichment capacity and impose inspections in exchange for lifting some sanctions. The poll was conducted Feb. 19-25, 2015, with a sample of 710 adults.The following are excerpted key findings from the poll._
> 
> "In this survey a representative sample of Americans were presented the two primary options that have dominated this debate:
> 
> ·For the US to continue to pursue an agreement that would accept some enrichment by Iran, but with substantial limits that would preclude Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, and intrusive inspections to ensure those limits are met, in exchange for the lifting of some sanctions.
> ·For the US to not accept any Iranian enrichment. Instead, the US would continue trying to get other nations to impose new economic sanctions in an effort to persuade Iran to cease enrichment completely.
> 
> While majorities found arguments for both options at least somewhat convincing, when asked to make their final recommendation, a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents. The alternative of increasing sanctions in an effort to get Iran to stop all uranium enrichment was endorsed by 36%."
> 
> 
> "Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents all made this same judgment. Republicans chose continuing negotiations by 61 to 35%, while Democrats favored it by 66 to 32%. A relatively more modest majority of Independents favored a deal by 54 to 42%.
> 
> 
> This response was essentially the same as when PPC took respondents through the exact same process and found 61% favored a deal and 35% favored pursuing sanctions. Partisan variations were not significantly different. In the current survey, among the 9% of the sample who identified themselves as very sympathetic to the Tea Party, a plurality of 46% favored pursuing a deal with 41% opposed. Those somewhat sympathetic to the Tea Party were no different from the sample as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe in subscribing to facts?
Click to expand...


Here is the poll I posted which is much more in depth.  Read it please.  

Iran


----------



## ChrisL

kiwiman127 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no they don't.  Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Taliban have to do with Iran and the crazy mullahs obtaining nuclear power?  Please elaborate because you aren't making any sense and you are jumping all over the place, just like you do when your ass has been handed to you on any of the gun threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that Pakistan is Moslem and much less stable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, with the strength of the Taliban presence in Pakistan, Pakistan is much more volatile.  It's a very scary scenario being as Pakistan isn't working on a nuclear program, they already has nuclear weapons,
Click to expand...


And what will happen with a nuclear Iran?  Better?  Less volatile you think?  Pakistan does not hold the beliefs of a 12th Imam.  That is a Shia thing, an Iranian thing.


----------



## ChrisL

kiwiman127 said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does Iran have Taliban inside their country fighting the military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the younger more educated people of Iran were trying to fight the military.  Most of them have disappeared.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no they don't.  Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What does the Taliban have to do with Iran and the crazy mullahs obtaining nuclear power?  Please elaborate because you aren't making any sense and you are jumping all over the place, just like you do when your ass has been handed to you on any of the gun threads.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that Pakistan is Moslem and much less stable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree, with the strength of the Taliban presence in Pakistan, Pakistan is much more volatile.  It's a very scary scenario being as Pakistan isn't working on a nuclear program, they already has nuclear weapons.  The Taliban have been proven to have friends within the Pakistani government.
Click to expand...


No other country in the ME wants a nuclear Iran either.  Once Iran has them, shiite is really going to hit the fan.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the liberal answer to a nuclear Iran is just go along with it.  Ha-ha!    They know nothing of some of the nasty things the United States has had to do and will continue to do in the name of world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they want an agreement.  The right has no plan.  They want Iran to continue down the to a nuke.
Click to expand...

BS......the right plan is to deal with a bully using tactics only a lying bully understands....none of this soft-serve idiocy that BO is promoting...


----------



## ChrisL

Again, to educate you, Iran's mullahs hold the belief that there has to be an apocalypse in order for their 12th Imam to appear, and also that Israel has to be destroyed.  Look it up for yourselves.  True story.


----------



## rhodescholar

Faun said:


> So what? All the Republicans did was make the U.S. appear weak and divisive. The message we just sent to the world, not just Iran, is don't make deals with the U.S., we don't keep them.



With obama infuriating and abandoning so many allies, who on earth trusts the US anymore?  Is is an accident that Japan is ramping up its military?



> With all the complaints about Iran not being trustworthy to keep up their end of any deal, we just advertised that it's us who don't keep deals. *We're now the ones who can't be trusted.*



Trusting the US is not the issue, it is that the obama team of failures and amateurs has conceded everything in these pointless talks - why don't you describe exactly what concessions iran has made?

Given that obama has tried to shut out congress completely on this issue, that every leak on what is being worked on simply amounts to more concessions by the dreadfully incompetent Kerry, and that it is obvious to all how desperate obama is to strike a deal no matter what the cost is to America's deterrence, standing in the world and its national security, it is hardly surprising that the senators are informing iran that this sweetheart deal obama is gifting them will not stand.


----------



## ChrisL

Oh, I do have some ideas.  We need to buckle down on these other trouble-making countries.  To all the countries that will not go along with sanctions, then we need to cut them off from our aid money and write them off as an enemy to the US and the world security.  

US gives billions in foreign aid to world s richest countries then asks to borrow it back Daily Mail Online


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what? All the Republicans did was make the U.S. appear weak and divisive. The message we just sent to the world, not just Iran, is don't make deals with the U.S., we don't keep them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With obama infuriating and abandoning so many allies, who on earth trusts the US anymore?  Is is an accident that Japan is ramping up its military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all the complaints about Iran not being trustworthy to keep up their end of any deal, we just advertised that it's us who don't keep deals. *We're now the ones who can't be trusted.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trusting the US is not the issue, it is that the obama team of failures and amateurs has conceded everything in these pointless talks - why don't you describe exactly what concessions iran has made?
> 
> Given that obama has tried to shut out congress completely on this issue, that every leak on what is being worked on simply amounts to more concessions by the dreadfully incompetent Kerry, and that it is obvious to all how desperate obama is to strike a deal no matter what the cost is to America's deterrence, standing in the world and its national security, it is hardly surprising that the senators are informing iran that this sweetheart deal obama is gifting them will not stand.
Click to expand...


Great points.


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> What we need is an agreement so they realize they don't need and shouldn't want one.  No agreement and they feel they need one.



What is needed is the iranian dictatorship to be wiped from the map, and replaced with something sane.


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Yes elected in a state, not nationally.  The whole country elected Obama.  Speak out yes, send a letter to a foreign country no.  They are an embarrassment.



What is an embarrassment is how far obama has contorted himself like a pretzel to make a deal no matter what.

BTW, you may be surprised to learn that there are things such as the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees, which are active participants in American foreign policy.  It would appear that you were not aware of that fact, so you're welcome.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

ChrisL said:


> Oh, I do have some ideas.  We need to buckle down on these other trouble-making countries.  To all the countries that will not go along with sanctions, then we need to cut them off from our aid money and write them off as an enemy to the US and the world security.
> 
> US gives billions in foreign aid to world s richest countries then asks to borrow it back Daily Mail Online


with the price of oil down right now we could really put the screws to Iran....


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somebody needs to step up and make us look like weak morons to the rest of the world?  No I don't think we needed that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?  Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion?    What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...


I don't trust anyone with nukes.  I do trust this president when he says that if we don't get the agreement we want, we walk away from the negotiations.  And make no mistake, negotiating a satisfactory resolution is preferable to the alternative.  I think the families of our military personnel would agree.  I know mine does.  Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?


----------



## nat4900

Brain357 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They actually sold arms to Iran right?
Click to expand...

 
Indeed, the U.S. did.......
The Reagan administration secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran which was then the  subject of an arms embargo. They hoped that the arms sales would secure the release of US hostages and we would THEN use the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua...BUT, under the Boland Amendment further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Are you a moron?  You realize they are fighting ISIS right?



So fucking what?  They are at war with most of the mideast, and are the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism by far.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes elected in a state, not nationally.  The whole country elected Obama.  Speak out yes, send a letter to a foreign country no.  They are an embarrassment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is an embarrassment is how far obama has contorted himself like a pretzel to make a deal no matter what.
> 
> BTW, you may be surprised to learn that there are things such as the House and Senate Foreign Relations committees, which are active participants in American foreign policy.  It would appear that you were not aware of that fact, so you're welcome.
Click to expand...


The senate Foreign relations committee is there to investigate and advise.  They do not make foreign policy.


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> No senators shouldn't be sending notes to foreign countries.



Funny how the hypocrites liars on the left like this had no issue sending kucinicich and other democratic assholes to commiserate with saddam before the 2003 war...


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize the right doesn't like it, but he was elected president.  I am not divided on that at all.  Neither should any moron righties.  Do you guys want some dictator?  Throw out elections?  You are traitorous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody said that, brainless.  If you only had a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the 47 senators showed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are expressing their disapproval of the Obama administration wanting to make deals with a known terrorist state run by a bunch of complete religious fanatical nutcases, and I completely agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was elected President.  Nobody elected these senators to butt into foreign affairs.  They  are acting like children and making the whole country look bad.  Who would blame the rest of the world if we are left out of these discussions in the future?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And BTW, senators are also elected officials BRAIN.    And yes, they can speak out against the president in regards to what their constituents want.  The president is NOT a dictator.
Click to expand...

The people elected a Conservative Congress because they were unhappy with obama's policies. They are doing exactly what voters told them too.


----------



## nat4900

[/QUOTE]
with the price of oil down right now we could really put the screws to Iran....[/QUOTE]


No, not really....China will take every drop that Iran wishes to get out of the ground.


----------



## ChrisL

with the price of oil down right now we could really put the screws to Iran....[/QUOTE]


No, not really....China will take every drop that Iran wishes to get out of the ground.[/QUOTE]

The poster was talking about sanctions, I believe.  China BUYS their oil from Iran.  They don't "take" it.  Iran and China are allies.


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?



There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?  Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion?    What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust anyone with nukes.  I do trust this president when he says that if we don't get the agreement we want, we walk away from the negotiations.  And make no mistake, negotiating a satisfactory resolution is preferable to the alternative.  I think the families of our military personnel would agree.  I know mine does.  Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
Click to expand...


NOBODY wants war with Iran....especially a NUKE war....hence the interference with BO's negotiations...


----------



## TooTall

Lakhota said:


> I certainly trust President Obama more than 47 NaziCon Senators who hate him to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran.



That was a given in your case.  The Ayatola agrees with you and your liberal cohorts.  I had no idea your hero was Ayatolla Kohmeni.  The again, I did have my suspicions.


----------



## nat4900

[/QUOTE]

Funny how the hypocrites liars on the left like this had no issue sending kucinicich and other democratic assholes to commiserate with saddam before the 2003 war...[/QUOTE]

Recognize anyone in the picture below, dingbat?????


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Quite a message they sent to all the other countries seeking an agreement with iran.  They insulted our country, Germany, France, Russia, China...



The same message obama showed to Merkel when the US was exposed as tapping her personal cell phone?  Yeah, that jerk off has done wonders strengthening our relationships with so many foreign countries...


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a moron?  You realize they are fighting ISIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what?  They are at war with most of the mideast, and are the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism by far.
Click to expand...


Who is brainless kidding?  ISIS is sponsored by Iran, of course.  Who else has the means to support them and their "activities" around the ME?  Who else is giving them money?  Iran talking about fighting ISIS is just blustering from them to make themselves LOOK good.    We all know that most of the heavy duty and well funded terrorist activities that go on in the ME are sponsored by Iran.  

http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362


----------



## TooTall

natstew said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A treaty under any other name is still a treaty. It is a treaty!
Click to expand...


A treaty has to be ratified by the US Senate.  Any thing else does not have the weight of law and isn't really worth the paper it was written on.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No senators shouldn't be sending notes to foreign countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the hypocrites liars on the left like this had no issue sending kucinicich and other democratic assholes to commiserate with saddam before the 2003 war...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Recognize anyone in the picture below, dingbat?????
Click to expand...


Whatevs.  We need to be concerned with what is happening NOW and what will more than likely happen in the future.  WTF??    Is this some kind of game to you?  A nuclear Iran.  Think about it.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........



It wasn't because he trusted them dimwit, it was the only way to get our kidnapped people out from that terrorist state.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't because he trusted them dimwit, it was the only way to get our kidnapped people out from that terrorist state.
Click to expand...


This is the stupid typical liberal tactic.  But, but, but they did this!    They are THAT retarded.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It wasn't because he trusted them dimwit, it was the only way to get our kidnapped people out from that terrorist state.
Click to expand...


They don't understand that the United States as well as other countries have to do unsavory things in the name of national security.


----------



## Ernie S.

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> By not abiding by Iran's wishes, we look weak?    Figures a weak little scaredy cat like yourself would think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?  Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion?    What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust anyone with nukes.  I do trust this president when he says that if we don't get the agreement we want, we walk away from the negotiations.  And make no mistake, negotiating a satisfactory resolution is preferable to the alternative.  I think the families of our military personnel would agree.  I know mine does.  *Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?*
Click to expand...

Going to war, I mean really going to war would end the threat of Iran ever acquiring an atomic bomb.
The problem with conflicts we've had since 1945 is they weren't wars. They were battles of attrition with armies of idealistic pawns. The way to win a war is not buy killing soldiers, but by demoralizing the non warriors and removing the will of your enemy to continue an obviously losing effort.
We did that in 1945 and Germany and Japan are now allies and great trading partners.
We didn't fight to win in SE Asia and the world got North Korea and Viet Nam as a result.
We fought for 23 years all told and got nothing but 81,000 fresh graves.
Since Korea, the would be enemies of the US have seen us as weal and afraid to win. Why negotiate with a country that at the worst will solve your overpopulation problem a bit until the pansies decide to cut and run.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?  Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion?    What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust anyone with nukes.  I do trust this president when he says that if we don't get the agreement we want, we walk away from the negotiations.  And make no mistake, negotiating a satisfactory resolution is preferable to the alternative.  I think the families of our military personnel would agree.  I know mine does.  *Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going to war, I mean really going to war would end the threat of Iran ever acquiring an atomic bomb.
> The problem with conflicts we've had since 1945 is they weren't wars. They were battles of attrition with armies of idealistic pawns. The way to win a war is not buy killing soldiers, but by demoralizing the non warriors and removing the will of your enemy to continue an obviously losing effort.
> We did that in 1945 and Germany and Japan are now allies and great trading partners.
> We didn't fight to win in SE Asia and the world got North Korea and Viet Nam as a result.
> We fought for 23 years all told and got nothing but 81,000 fresh graves.
> Since Korea, the would be enemies of the US have seen us as weal and afraid to win. Why negotiate with a country that at the worst will solve your overpopulation problem a bit until the pansies decide to cut and run.
Click to expand...


Sun Tzu?   

Our war against terror is a good example of a war that will never be able to be won because there has to be a "defined enemy."  What we need to do is take out the SOURCE, and Iran is one of the biggest sources of terrorism in the ME.


----------



## Ernie S.

TooTall said:


> natstew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe 47 senators decided this was a good idea.  Wow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe anyone thinks signing a treaty with IRan that we all KNOW they are going to break is a good idea.
> 
> No shortage of bad ideas here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a treaty...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A treaty under any other name is still a treaty. It is a treaty!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A treaty has to be ratified by the US Senate.  Any thing else does not have the weight of law and isn't really worth the paper it was written on.
Click to expand...

And that's 2/3 of the Senate.


----------



## Ernie S.

Funny how the hypocrites liars on the left like this had no issue sending kucinicich and other democratic assholes to commiserate with saddam before the 2003 war...[/QUOTE]

Recognize anyone in the picture below, dingbat?????








[/QUOTE]
Rumsfeld was Reagan's special envoy, idiot.


----------



## ChrisL

I don't WANT to go to war with Iran either, but if it comes down to it, we need to fight a war in the correct way.  That would mean to ignore the liberal bleeding heart sector of our society.  War is brutal and is supposed to be that way.  You wear down your enemies and you wear down their resolve.  You don't "avoid civilian casualties" as this is a BIG part of getting the enemy to surrender.  

The liberals need to read about Sun Tzu . . . the man was a genius when it comes to war.  All of our politicians should read it too.  America used to win wars because we followed the teachings of Sun Tzu.  Since we've abandoned those philosophies, we haven't really "won" any wars.  

The Internet Classics Archive The Art of War by Sun Tzu


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?  Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion?    What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust anyone with nukes.  I do trust this president when he says that if we don't get the agreement we want, we walk away from the negotiations.  And make no mistake, negotiating a satisfactory resolution is preferable to the alternative.  I think the families of our military personnel would agree.  I know mine does.  *Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going to war, I mean really going to war would end the threat of Iran ever acquiring an atomic bomb.
> The problem with conflicts we've had since 1945 is they weren't wars. They were battles of attrition with armies of idealistic pawns. The way to win a war is not buy killing soldiers, but by demoralizing the non warriors and removing the will of your enemy to continue an obviously losing effort.
> We did that in 1945 and Germany and Japan are now allies and great trading partners.
> We didn't fight to win in SE Asia and the world got North Korea and Viet Nam as a result.
> We fought for 23 years all told and got nothing but 81,000 fresh graves.
> Since Korea, the would be enemies of the US have seen us as weal and afraid to win. Why negotiate with a country that at the worst will solve your overpopulation problem a bit until the pansies decide to cut and run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sun Tzu?
> 
> Our war against terror is a good example of a war that will never be able to be won because there has to be a "defined enemy."  What we need to do is take out the SOURCE, and Iran is one of the biggest sources of terrorism in the ME.
Click to expand...



Well yes. What we need to do in the Mid East is, by either diplomacy or force, show the Islamic People that living in the 7th century isn't going to cut it in the 21st and they should reject radical Islamic government.


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> I don't WANT to go to war with Iran either, but if it comes down to it, we need to fight a war in the correct way.  That would mean to ignore the liberal bleeding heart sector of our society.  War is brutal and is supposed to be that way.  You wear down your enemies and you wear down their resolve.  You don't "avoid civilian casualties" as this is a BIG part of getting the enemy to surrender.
> 
> The liberals need to read about Sun Tzu . . . the man was a genius when it comes to war.  All of our politicians should read it too.  America used to win wars because we followed the teachings of Sun Tzu.  Since we've abandoned those philosophies, we haven't really "won" any wars.
> 
> The Internet Classics Archive The Art of War by Sun Tzu


Brilliant!


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?  Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion?    What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust anyone with nukes.  I do trust this president when he says that if we don't get the agreement we want, we walk away from the negotiations.  And make no mistake, negotiating a satisfactory resolution is preferable to the alternative.  I think the families of our military personnel would agree.  I know mine does.  *Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Going to war, I mean really going to war would end the threat of Iran ever acquiring an atomic bomb.
> The problem with conflicts we've had since 1945 is they weren't wars. They were battles of attrition with armies of idealistic pawns. The way to win a war is not buy killing soldiers, but by demoralizing the non warriors and removing the will of your enemy to continue an obviously losing effort.
> We did that in 1945 and Germany and Japan are now allies and great trading partners.
> We didn't fight to win in SE Asia and the world got North Korea and Viet Nam as a result.
> We fought for 23 years all told and got nothing but 81,000 fresh graves.
> Since Korea, the would be enemies of the US have seen us as weal and afraid to win. Why negotiate with a country that at the worst will solve your overpopulation problem a bit until the pansies decide to cut and run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sun Tzu?
> 
> Our war against terror is a good example of a war that will never be able to be won because there has to be a "defined enemy."  What we need to do is take out the SOURCE, and Iran is one of the biggest sources of terrorism in the ME.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well yes. What we need to do in the Mid East is, by either diplomacy or force, show the Islamic People that living in the 7th century isn't going to cut it in the 21st and they should reject radical Islamic government.
Click to expand...


Obviously that is just what they want, to drag us all back into the Middle Ages.  That was when Muslims had power and control over large territories.  Unfortunately for them, they have not really progressed past that point and that makes them very angry people.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

ScreamingEagle said:
			
		

> with the price of oil down right now we could really put the screws to Iran....






			
				nat4900 said:
			
		

> No, not really....China will take every drop that Iran wishes to get out of the ground.




if there's a war against Iran there will be no oil for China......it's in China's self-interest to cooperate...


----------



## Lakhota

*Obama: 'I'm Embarrassed' For Republicans Who Sent Letter To Iran*

President Barack Obama said he's "embarrassed" for the group of Republicans who sent a letter to Iran warning against a nuclear deal with the United States.

"I'm embarrassed for them," Obama told Vice. "For them to address a letter to the ayatollah -- the supreme leader of Iran, who they claim is our mortal enemy -- and their basic argument to them is: don't deal with our president, because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement... That's close to unprecedented."

A total of 47 senators signed the letter, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). Several other Republicans threw their support behind the letter, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, both considered potential contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential primary.

Obama: 'I'm Embarrassed' For Republicans Who Sent Letter To Iran


Thank you, Mr. President, for rising above it all.  They don't have your class or love of country.


----------



## JimH52

JoeB131 said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly trust President Obama more than 47 NaziCon Senators who hate him to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that wasn't the question I was asking, Chief Running Bull.
> 
> I asked a simple question.  Can we trust the Iranians to keep their end of the agreement?
Click to expand...


Like RR used to say.  Trust but verify.  No one trust Iran, but they are helping Iraq defeat ISIS.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Lakhota said:


> *Obama: 'I'm Embarrassed' For Republicans Who Sent Letter To Iran*
> 
> President Barack Obama said he's "embarrassed" for the group of Republicans who sent a letter to Iran warning against a nuclear deal with the United States.
> 
> "I'm embarrassed for them," Obama told Vice. "For them to address a letter to the ayatollah -- the supreme leader of Iran, who they claim is our mortal enemy -- and their basic argument to them is: don't deal with our president, because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement... That's close to unprecedented."
> 
> A total of 47 senators signed the letter, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). Several other Republicans threw their support behind the letter, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, both considered potential contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential primary.
> 
> Obama: 'I'm Embarrassed' For Republicans Who Sent Letter To Iran
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mr. President, for rising above it all.  They don't have your class or love of country.



BO is embarrassed for Congress.....?   that's a laugh.....if anything HE is the one to be embarrassed....at least he should be....


----------



## nat4900

Just to piss off all the "bomb, bomb Iran" arm-chair "warriors on this thread...a bit of history other than your usual "...all I need to know I learn from FOX..."

Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic relations, stated, "....there are lots of Christian churches and synagogues in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, Qatar, Kuwait. … If you go to any number of so-called Muslim countries you will see thriving Christian and Jewish populations." One member of the Iranian Parliament is Jewish....The only one where you don't see it, where you can't have a Christian church or synagogue is Saudi Arabia"........[our "ally" and gas station.]


----------



## nat4900

Ernie S. said:


> Funny how the hypocrites liars on the left like this had no issue sending kucinicich and other democratic assholes to commiserate with saddam before the 2003 war...


 
Recognize anyone in the picture below, dingbat?????







[/QUOTE]
Rumsfeld was Reagan's special envoy, idiot.[/QUOTE]


Now, now, I was responding to the idiot (RoughRoadsScholar).....LOL


----------



## ChrisL

Lakhota said:


> *Obama: 'I'm Embarrassed' For Republicans Who Sent Letter To Iran*
> 
> President Barack Obama said he's "embarrassed" for the group of Republicans who sent a letter to Iran warning against a nuclear deal with the United States.
> 
> "I'm embarrassed for them," Obama told Vice. "For them to address a letter to the ayatollah -- the supreme leader of Iran, who they claim is our mortal enemy -- and their basic argument to them is: don't deal with our president, because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement... That's close to unprecedented."
> 
> A total of 47 senators signed the letter, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). Several other Republicans threw their support behind the letter, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, both considered potential contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential primary.
> 
> Obama: 'I'm Embarrassed' For Republicans Who Sent Letter To Iran
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mr. President, for rising above it all.  They don't have your class or love of country.



Too funny!    Obama got you whipped, eh?


----------



## TooTall

Lakhota said:


> *Obama: 'I'm Embarrassed' For Republicans Who Sent Letter To Iran*
> 
> President Barack Obama said he's "embarrassed" for the group of Republicans who sent a letter to Iran warning against a nuclear deal with the United States.
> 
> "I'm embarrassed for them," Obama told Vice. "For them to address a letter to the ayatollah -- the supreme leader of Iran, who they claim is our mortal enemy -- and their basic argument to them is: don't deal with our president, because you can't trust him to follow through on an agreement... That's close to unprecedented."
> 
> A total of 47 senators signed the letter, including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). Several other Republicans threw their support behind the letter, including Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, both considered potential contenders for the 2016 GOP presidential primary.
> 
> Obama: 'I'm Embarrassed' For Republicans Who Sent Letter To Iran
> 
> 
> Thank you, Mr. President, for rising above it all.  They don't have your class or love of country.



It is apparent who Obama loves, and it sure as hell isn't his country.  Obama and the Ayatollah agree and that is not a good thing.

TEHRAN —Iran’s highest leader issued a sharp response Thursday to a letter to the country’s leadership by Republican lawmakers, deriding it as an indication that Washington is “disintegrating” from within.

AyatollahAli Khamenei,Iran’s supreme leader, said the letter warning that any nuclear deal could be scrapped by a new president was “a sign of a decline in political ethics and the destruction of the American establishment from within.” The statement was posted on his website.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Just to piss off all the "bomb, bomb Iran" arm-chair "warriors on this thread...a bit of history other than your usual "...all I need to know I learn from FOX..."
> 
> Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic relations, stated, "....there are lots of Christian churches and synagogues in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, Qatar, Kuwait. … If you go to any number of so-called Muslim countries you will see thriving Christian and Jewish populations." One member of the Iranian Parliament is Jewish....The only one where you don't see it, where you can't have a Christian church or synagogue is Saudi Arabia"........[our "ally" and gas station.]



Bwa-ha-ha.  Do you know why Christianity exists in Iran currently?  Most of the Armenian Christians fled Iran during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s.  Now, they are mostly converts from the Muslim religion.  They are considered second class citizens (or dhimmis) and there are not LOTS of them, as the Christian population in Iran is extremely low and they are discriminated against.  You people are SO naive.   

Religion in Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

According to the CIA World Factbook, around 90%[1] of Iranians associate themselves with the Shi'a branch of Islam, the official state religion, and about 9% with the Sunniand Sufi branches of Islam. The remaining 0.9% associate themselves with non-Islamic religious minorities, including Bahá'ís, Mandeans, Yarsanis, Zoroastrians, Jews, andChristians.[2] The latter three minority religions are officially recognized and protected, and have reserved seats in the Iran parliament. Zoroastrianism was once the majority religion, though today Zoroastrians number only in the tens of thousands.[3] Iran is home to the second largest Jewish community in the Muslim World.[4] The Bahá'í Faith, Iran's largest non-Muslim religious minority, is not officially recognized, and has been persecuted during its existence in Iran.[5][6][7][8]

The Iranian government does not officially recognise the existence of non-religious Iranians. This leaves the true representation of the religious split in Iran unknown as all non-religious, spiritual, atheist, agnostic and converts away from Islam are likely to be included within the government statistic of the 99% Muslim majority.[1] Sunnism was the predominant form theology before the devastating Mongol conquest, but subsequently Shi'ism became dominant.

The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism as official religions. Article 13 of the Iranian Constitution, recognizes them as _People of the Book_ and they are granted the right to exercise religious freedom in Iran.[42][48] Five of the 270 seats in parliament are reserved for these each of these three religions.

On the other hand, senior government posts are reserved for Muslims. All minority religious groups, including Sunni Muslims, are barred from being elected president. Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian schools must be run by Muslim principals.[49] Compensation for death paid to the family of a non-Muslim was (by law) less than if the victim was a Muslim until recently. Conversion to Islam is encouraged by entitling converts to inherit the entire share of their parents' (or even uncle's) estate if their siblings (or cousins) remain non-Muslim.[50] Iran's non-Muslim population has fallen dramatically. For example, the Jewish population in Iran dropped from 80,000 to 30,000 in the first two decades of the revolution.[51] By 2012, it had dwindled below 9,000.[52]


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the liberal answer to a nuclear Iran is just go along with it.  Ha-ha!    They know nothing of some of the nasty things the United States has had to do and will continue to do in the name of world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they want an agreement.  The right has no plan.  They want Iran to continue down the to a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your signature.  Little do you realize that you are a part of the far left.    Against constitutional rights for citizens but fully supportive of a nuclear Iran.  Now if that's not crazy, I don't know what is!  Lol.
Click to expand...


I hear the facts and make my own decisions.  Not a slave to a party like you.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

nat4900 said:


> Just to piss off all the "bomb, bomb Iran" arm-chair "warriors on this thread...a bit of history other than your usual "...all I need to know I learn from FOX..."
> 
> Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic relations, stated, "....there are lots of Christian churches and synagogues in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, Qatar, Kuwait. … If you go to any number of so-called Muslim countries you will see thriving Christian and Jewish populations." One member of the Iranian Parliament is Jewish....The only one where you don't see it, where you can't have a Christian church or synagogue is Saudi Arabia"........[our "ally" and gas station.]


who listens to Ibrahim Hooper or CAIR...?   you just need to look at their motivation for saying such things...


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the liberal answer to a nuclear Iran is just go along with it.  Ha-ha!    They know nothing of some of the nasty things the United States has had to do and will continue to do in the name of world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they want an agreement.  The right has no plan.  They want Iran to continue down the to a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your signature.  Little do you realize that you are a part of the far left.    Against constitutional rights for citizens but fully supportive of a nuclear Iran.  Now if that's not crazy, I don't know what is!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear the facts and make my own decisions.  Not a slave to a party like you.
Click to expand...


The facts have been outlined for you in this very thread, but you refuse to acknowledge them and just agree with Obama.  Lol.  That is NOT thinking for yourself or hearing facts.  

I want you to defend your position.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a moron?  You realize they are fighting ISIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what?  They are at war with most of the mideast, and are the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism by far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is brainless kidding?  ISIS is sponsored by Iran, of course.  Who else has the means to support them and their "activities" around the ME?  Who else is giving them money?  Iran talking about fighting ISIS is just blustering from them to make themselves LOOK good.    We all know that most of the heavy duty and well funded terrorist activities that go on in the ME are sponsored by Iran.
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
Click to expand...


Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is fighting ISIS.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a moron?  You realize they are fighting ISIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what?  They are at war with most of the mideast, and are the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism by far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is brainless kidding?  ISIS is sponsored by Iran, of course.  Who else has the means to support them and their "activities" around the ME?  Who else is giving them money?  Iran talking about fighting ISIS is just blustering from them to make themselves LOOK good.    We all know that most of the heavy duty and well funded terrorist activities that go on in the ME are sponsored by Iran.
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is fighting ISIS.
Click to expand...


Iraq?  I don't believe I mentioned Iraq in my post.  Also, the Saudis have already been threatened by ISIS too.  You know, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you don't really have a clue as to what is going on in the world around you.  It's pathetic really.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the liberal answer to a nuclear Iran is just go along with it.  Ha-ha!    They know nothing of some of the nasty things the United States has had to do and will continue to do in the name of world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they want an agreement.  The right has no plan.  They want Iran to continue down the to a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your signature.  Little do you realize that you are a part of the far left.    Against constitutional rights for citizens but fully supportive of a nuclear Iran.  Now if that's not crazy, I don't know what is!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear the facts and make my own decisions.  Not a slave to a party like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts have been outlined for you in this very thread, but you refuse to acknowledge them and just agree with Obama.  Lol.  That is NOT thinking for yourself or hearing facts.
> 
> I want you to defend your position.
Click to expand...


The thing is you are wrong.  No agreement means they want a nuke more.  War?  First we can't afford another war.  Second the Iraq war made everything worse.  You think saddam would have let Iran get a nuke?  Your position is owned by Israel, the rest of the world wants an agreement.  Why are you more loyal to Israel than the US?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a moron?  You realize they are fighting ISIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what?  They are at war with most of the mideast, and are the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism by far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is brainless kidding?  ISIS is sponsored by Iran, of course.  Who else has the means to support them and their "activities" around the ME?  Who else is giving them money?  Iran talking about fighting ISIS is just blustering from them to make themselves LOOK good.    We all know that most of the heavy duty and well funded terrorist activities that go on in the ME are sponsored by Iran.
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is fighting ISIS.
Click to expand...


I know there will be complaints about the source, but read this article.  It is cut and dried, to the point and makes perfect sense on Iran's view of the things that are happening in the ME, including ISIS.  All of these things are working to THEIR advantage.  

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the liberal answer to a nuclear Iran is just go along with it.  Ha-ha!    They know nothing of some of the nasty things the United States has had to do and will continue to do in the name of world security.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they want an agreement.  The right has no plan.  They want Iran to continue down the to a nuke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your signature.  Little do you realize that you are a part of the far left.    Against constitutional rights for citizens but fully supportive of a nuclear Iran.  Now if that's not crazy, I don't know what is!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear the facts and make my own decisions.  Not a slave to a party like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts have been outlined for you in this very thread, but you refuse to acknowledge them and just agree with Obama.  Lol.  That is NOT thinking for yourself or hearing facts.
> 
> I want you to defend your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is you are wrong.  No agreement means they want a nuke more.  War?  First we can't afford another war.  Second the Iraq war made everything worse.  You think saddam would have let Iran get a nuke?  Your position is owned by Israel, the rest of the world wants an agreement.  Why are you more loyal to Israel than the US?
Click to expand...


Good Lord, is that the best you can do?  Pathetic.  Your post is barely legible and one can tell you don't know what you're talking about, as per usual.  Saddam is also one who was keen on proliferating nukes.  Do some homework!!!


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a moron?  You realize they are fighting ISIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what?  They are at war with most of the mideast, and are the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism by far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is brainless kidding?  ISIS is sponsored by Iran, of course.  Who else has the means to support them and their "activities" around the ME?  Who else is giving them money?  Iran talking about fighting ISIS is just blustering from them to make themselves LOOK good.    We all know that most of the heavy duty and well funded terrorist activities that go on in the ME are sponsored by Iran.
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is fighting ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq?  I don't believe I mentioned Iraq in my post.  Also, the Saudis have already been threatened by ISIS too.  You know, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you don't really have a clue as to what is going on in the world around you.  It's pathetic really.
Click to expand...


Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they want an agreement.  The right has no plan.  They want Iran to continue down the to a nuke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your signature.  Little do you realize that you are a part of the far left.    Against constitutional rights for citizens but fully supportive of a nuclear Iran.  Now if that's not crazy, I don't know what is!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hear the facts and make my own decisions.  Not a slave to a party like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts have been outlined for you in this very thread, but you refuse to acknowledge them and just agree with Obama.  Lol.  That is NOT thinking for yourself or hearing facts.
> 
> I want you to defend your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is you are wrong.  No agreement means they want a nuke more.  War?  First we can't afford another war.  Second the Iraq war made everything worse.  You think saddam would have let Iran get a nuke?  Your position is owned by Israel, the rest of the world wants an agreement.  Why are you more loyal to Israel than the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord, is that the best you can do?  Pathetic.  Your post is barely legible and one can tell you don't know what you're talking about, as per usual.  Saddam is also one who was keen on proliferating nukes.  Do some homework!!!
Click to expand...


You ignored my questions.  Very telling.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a moron?  You realize they are fighting ISIS right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what?  They are at war with most of the mideast, and are the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism by far.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is brainless kidding?  ISIS is sponsored by Iran, of course.  Who else has the means to support them and their "activities" around the ME?  Who else is giving them money?  Iran talking about fighting ISIS is just blustering from them to make themselves LOOK good.    We all know that most of the heavy duty and well funded terrorist activities that go on in the ME are sponsored by Iran.
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is fighting ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq?  I don't believe I mentioned Iraq in my post.  Also, the Saudis have already been threatened by ISIS too.  You know, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you don't really have a clue as to what is going on in the world around you.  It's pathetic really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
Click to expand...


Iran is "faux" helping.    Everything that ISIS is doing works to their advantage.  Can you deny this?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like your signature.  Little do you realize that you are a part of the far left.    Against constitutional rights for citizens but fully supportive of a nuclear Iran.  Now if that's not crazy, I don't know what is!  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hear the facts and make my own decisions.  Not a slave to a party like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts have been outlined for you in this very thread, but you refuse to acknowledge them and just agree with Obama.  Lol.  That is NOT thinking for yourself or hearing facts.
> 
> I want you to defend your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is you are wrong.  No agreement means they want a nuke more.  War?  First we can't afford another war.  Second the Iraq war made everything worse.  You think saddam would have let Iran get a nuke?  Your position is owned by Israel, the rest of the world wants an agreement.  Why are you more loyal to Israel than the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord, is that the best you can do?  Pathetic.  Your post is barely legible and one can tell you don't know what you're talking about, as per usual.  Saddam is also one who was keen on proliferating nukes.  Do some homework!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignored my questions.  Very telling.
Click to expand...


You didn't ask me any questions.  You made idiotic and dishonest assumptions as usual.  Israel is one of our most trusted ally, especially in that part of the world, so yes I would side with Israel over Iran.  What kind of moron wouldn't?  Oh . . . that's right . . . there's you and other foolish liberals.  Lol.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So fucking what?  They are at war with most of the mideast, and are the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism by far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is brainless kidding?  ISIS is sponsored by Iran, of course.  Who else has the means to support them and their "activities" around the ME?  Who else is giving them money?  Iran talking about fighting ISIS is just blustering from them to make themselves LOOK good.    We all know that most of the heavy duty and well funded terrorist activities that go on in the ME are sponsored by Iran.
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is fighting ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq?  I don't believe I mentioned Iraq in my post.  Also, the Saudis have already been threatened by ISIS too.  You know, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you don't really have a clue as to what is going on in the world around you.  It's pathetic really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is "faux" helping.    Everything that ISIS is doing works to their advantage.  Can you deny this?
Click to expand...


Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL writes with eternal bigotry......
_Bwa-ha-ha. Do you know why Christianity exists in Iran currently? Most of the Armenian Christians fled Iran during the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s. Now, they are mostly converts from the Muslim religion. They are considered second class citizens (or dhimmis) and there are not LOTS of them, as the Christian population in Iran is extremely low and they are discriminated against. You people are SO naive_.  

Second Class citizens indeed.....just the way your bigoted ilk would like to treat Muslims in the U.S......don't you agree?


----------



## ChrisL

Lakhota said:


>



I don't even know who that is.    Sounds like he might be from the ME though, perhaps Iran.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hear the facts and make my own decisions.  Not a slave to a party like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts have been outlined for you in this very thread, but you refuse to acknowledge them and just agree with Obama.  Lol.  That is NOT thinking for yourself or hearing facts.
> 
> I want you to defend your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thing is you are wrong.  No agreement means they want a nuke more.  War?  First we can't afford another war.  Second the Iraq war made everything worse.  You think saddam would have let Iran get a nuke?  Your position is owned by Israel, the rest of the world wants an agreement.  Why are you more loyal to Israel than the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord, is that the best you can do?  Pathetic.  Your post is barely legible and one can tell you don't know what you're talking about, as per usual.  Saddam is also one who was keen on proliferating nukes.  Do some homework!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You ignored my questions.  Very telling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't ask me any questions.  You made idiotic and dishonest assumptions as usual.  Israel is one of our most trusted ally, especially in that part of the world, so yes I would side with Israel over Iran.  What kind of moron wouldn't?  Oh . . . that's right . . . there's you and other foolish liberals.  Lol.
Click to expand...


You side with Israel over the US.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who that is.    Sounds like he might be from the ME though, perhaps Iran.
Click to expand...


You clearly don't know enough to be in this conversation.


----------



## Lakhota

ChrisL said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who that is.    Sounds like he might be from the ME though, perhaps Iran.
Click to expand...


It's Senator Tom Cotton.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is brainless kidding?  ISIS is sponsored by Iran, of course.  Who else has the means to support them and their "activities" around the ME?  Who else is giving them money?  Iran talking about fighting ISIS is just blustering from them to make themselves LOOK good.    We all know that most of the heavy duty and well funded terrorist activities that go on in the ME are sponsored by Iran.
> 
> http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is fighting ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iraq?  I don't believe I mentioned Iraq in my post.  Also, the Saudis have already been threatened by ISIS too.  You know, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you don't really have a clue as to what is going on in the world around you.  It's pathetic really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is "faux" helping.    Everything that ISIS is doing works to their advantage.  Can you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.
Click to expand...


Iran also denies supporting all of the other terrorist organizations.  They are a propaganda machine.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> They would be correct.  They are being honest and they are right.





> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in subscribing to facts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents all made this same judgment. Republicans chose continuing negotiations by 61 to 35%, while Democrats favored it by 66 to 32%. A relatively more modest majority of Independents favored a deal by 54 to 42%.
Click to expand...


So only you fear-mongered 35% of Republicans overall and 48 dumbass Republican Senators and Netanyahu and two Republican governors and John Bolton are right and the rest of the world is wrong to seek to try a verifiable nuclear deal with Iran.

That's the same 40% that did not believe (against the belief of most of these same nations) that the UN inspectors could disarm Iraq peacefully and verify that Iraq did not have WMD. Only war could disarm Iraq to these same fear-mongered conservatives. They were wrong then and they are likely to be proven wrong now.

Do you remember these days in early 2003 when this same 40% got their war through Bush43?  When this was said before the invasion  -
_*
“Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” *_

Well they are at it again mostly in the US only this time. The Brits learned from their Iraq mistake.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who that is.    Sounds like he might be from the ME though, perhaps Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't know enough to be in this conversation.
Click to expand...


I'm not a political pundit or a partisan, like most of you here.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

Lakhota said:


>


hahaha....i see the smearing of Cotton is already in full swing....you libs are contemptible losers....


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They would be correct.  They are being honest and they are right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE="NotfooledbyW, post: 10957416, member: 49934"]Do you believe in subscribing to facts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents all made this same judgment. Republicans chose continuing negotiations by 61 to 35%, while Democrats favored it by 66 to 32%. A relatively more modest majority of Independents favored a deal by 54 to 42%.
Click to expand...


So only you fear-mongered 35% of Republicans overall and 48 dumbass Republican Senators and Netanyahu and two Republican governors and John Bolton are right and the rest of the world is wrong to seek to try a verifiable nuclear deal with Iran.

That's the same 40% that did not believe (against the belief of most of these same nations) that the UN inspectors could disarm Iraq peacefully and verify that Iraq did not have WMD. Only war could disarm Iraq to these same fear-mongered conservatives. They were wrong then and they are likely to be proven wrong now.

Do you remember these days in early 2003 when this same 40% got their war through Bush43?  When this was said before the invasion  -
_*
“Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran.” *_

Well they are at it again mostly in the US only this time. The Brits learned from their Iraq mistake.[/QUOTE]

All of your politicking aside, are you claiming that you think a nuclear Iran is a good idea and that Mr. Obama is making a good decision?

Edit:  Also, you NEED to learn how to quote correctly.  I am not going to fix your errors.  Make sure you do it correctly next time and correct your errors.


----------



## ChrisL

ScreamingEagle said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha....i see the smearing of Cotton is already in full swing....you libs are contemptible losers....
Click to expand...


Well, if those are some of the things this man truly believes, then he does not belong in American politics.  Us women will not accept such a person.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who that is.    Sounds like he might be from the ME though, perhaps Iran.
Click to expand...

 

You know, *ChrisL*.....most dumb right wingers try to hide their stupidity....You seem to want to FLAUNT it.....


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saudi Arabia.  Iraq is fighting ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq?  I don't believe I mentioned Iraq in my post.  Also, the Saudis have already been threatened by ISIS too.  You know, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you don't really have a clue as to what is going on in the world around you.  It's pathetic really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is "faux" helping.    Everything that ISIS is doing works to their advantage.  Can you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran also denies supporting all of the other terrorist organizations.  They are a propaganda machine.
Click to expand...


And you are unaware that Shia and sunni don't really get along right?


----------



## G.T.

This thread is 26 pages from going double platinum. Congrats to the OP. big threads can get you laid bruv.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who that is.    Sounds like he might be from the ME though, perhaps Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, *ChrisL*.....most dumb right wingers try to hide their stupidity....You seem to want to FLAUNT it.....
Click to expand...


You must be delusional.  All of my posts have been backed with facts and links, not pictures from google images.


----------



## Brain357

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who that is.    Sounds like he might be from the ME though, perhaps Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, *ChrisL*.....most dumb right wingers try to hide their stupidity....You seem to want to FLAUNT it.....
Click to expand...


The stupidity is almost impressive.  She seems to know so little in the way of facts, but continues embarrassing herself.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iraq?  I don't believe I mentioned Iraq in my post.  Also, the Saudis have already been threatened by ISIS too.  You know, the more you post, the more obvious it is that you don't really have a clue as to what is going on in the world around you.  It's pathetic really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is "faux" helping.    Everything that ISIS is doing works to their advantage.  Can you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran also denies supporting all of the other terrorist organizations.  They are a propaganda machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are unaware that Shia and sunni don't really get along right?
Click to expand...


Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't even know who that is.    Sounds like he might be from the ME though, perhaps Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You know, *ChrisL*.....most dumb right wingers try to hide their stupidity....You seem to want to FLAUNT it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The stupidity is almost impressive.  She seems to know so little in the way of facts, but continues embarrassing herself.
Click to expand...


Well, you can keep saying that, but all of my posts are backed by facts about Iran.    Everyone here can see that, and I'm sure everyone knows that you are usually wrong.  Just like I kick your arse on the gun threads, I'm doing it here on this subject as well.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is "faux" helping.    Everything that ISIS is doing works to their advantage.  Can you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran also denies supporting all of the other terrorist organizations.  They are a propaganda machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are unaware that Shia and sunni don't really get along right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.
Click to expand...


Then support your facts with links.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is "faux" helping.    Everything that ISIS is doing works to their advantage.  Can you deny this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran also denies supporting all of the other terrorist organizations.  They are a propaganda machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are unaware that Shia and sunni don't really get along right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
Click to expand...


I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . . 

How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast

Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine

Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster 

And more . . . 

Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.


----------



## nat4900

[QUOTE 

Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.  [/QUOTE]

Given this dingbat's "logic" (right *ChrisL*?) Iran should be backing those 47 right wing senators, no????

BTW, your opinions (as screwed as they are) are NOT facts.....


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE
> 
> Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.



Given this dingbat's "logic" (right *ChrisL*?) Iran should be backing those 47 right wing senators, no????

BTW, your opinions (as screwed as they are) are NOT facts.....[/QUOTE]

Fix your quote, or I won't answer it.  You are fucking everything up, just like Obama.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## ChrisL

So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts.    Then we have others posting memes off google images.  

I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran also denies supporting all of the other terrorist organizations.  They are a propaganda machine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are unaware that Shia and sunni don't really get along right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
Click to expand...


Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.


----------



## ChrisL

Liberals argument . . . "you're a stupid dingbat because you don't believe Obama's ideas are good . . . "  That about sums up their arguments.


----------



## boedicca

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Cool....  !!!!




Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
Click to expand...


So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran also denies supporting all of the other terrorist organizations.  They are a propaganda machine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are unaware that Shia and sunni don't really get along right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
Click to expand...


Oh really, where is that?  Post it.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...


It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?


----------



## orogenicman

boedicca said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool....  !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.
Click to expand...


That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...


Good GOD man, everything that Iran does, stands for and believes in would tell an intelligent person that they want war.  They want their post apocalyptic imam to come and make them all powerful.  That is what they LIVE for, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out.  Just some reading and looking at history and current events.  It all adds up.


----------



## orogenicman

ScreamingEagle said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by Iran's wishes?  And what are those wishes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you think we've been talking about all this time?  Duh.  Try and follow along.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am asking you what YOU think those wishes are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now I am asking you, do you trust Iran with nuclear capabilities?  Are they just a harmless misunderstood country in your opinion?    What do you think will happen if they ever obtained nuclear weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust anyone with nukes.  I do trust this president when he says that if we don't get the agreement we want, we walk away from the negotiations.  And make no mistake, negotiating a satisfactory resolution is preferable to the alternative.  I think the families of our military personnel would agree.  I know mine does.  Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOBODY wants war with Iran....especially a NUKE war....hence the interference with BO's negotiations...
Click to expand...


Given that the president has made clear that if we don't get what we want from these negotiations (I.e., an Iran that is not seeking nukes), we walk away from the negotiations, what interference do you suppose is required?


----------



## ScreamingEagle

orogenicman said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
Click to expand...


militant Islam has already started another world war...


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are unaware that Shia and sunni don't really get along right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
Click to expand...


You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.


----------



## boedicca

orogenicman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool....  !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.
Click to expand...



Not quite accurate, bub:

_
* U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
*


Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
*
U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net


2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*


----------



## ChrisL

Iran's proliferation of nuclear weapons, would set off an arms race in the Middle East.  Great idea.  Thanks Obama for helping.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
Click to expand...


The only one they are fighting is Isis.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
Click to expand...


I posted an entire article about it.  It isn't my fault if you cannot read or understand what you are reading.  How old are you anyway?  I think you are just a foolish child.


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good GOD man, everything that Iran does, stands for and believes in would tell an intelligent person that they want war.  They want their post apocalyptic imam to come and make them all powerful.  That is what they LIVE for, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out.  Just some reading and looking at history and current events.  It all adds up.
Click to expand...


Okay let's look at their history.  Everything I've seen Iran doing seems designed to defend themselves from being attacked.  I don't see them amassing troops, preparing for some sort of invasion somewhere.  Do you? The fact is that Iran has never started a war in the past 100 years.  They were attacked by Saddam Hussein in 1979, and responded by defending themselves in an all out war with that country.  Can you blame them for wanting to defend themselves?  So  what war do you suppose they want?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted an entire article about it.  It isn't my fault if you cannot read or understand what you are reading.  How old are you anyway?  I think you are just a foolish child.
Click to expand...


But that's not what the article says and you know it.  Pathetic how you have to lie.

Iran s Qasem Soleimani Is Guiding Iraqi Forces in Fight Against ISIS - NBC News


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10958476 





ChrisL said:


> All of my posts have been backed with facts and links, not pictures from google images.




Not this one:

ChrL 10956880 





ChrisL said:


> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know _*that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama*_.



I challenged your undocumented fact here:

NF 10957416 





NotfooledbyW said:


> "a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.



So as you claim that all of your posts have been backed with facts, that is indeed not a fact. So are two misstated facts right there.


----------



## orogenicman

ScreamingEagle said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> militant Islam has already started another world war...
Click to expand...


Really?  Give me some statistics on their fighting capabilities, troop strength, lands captured.


----------



## boedicca

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good GOD man, everything that Iran does, stands for and believes in would tell an intelligent person that they want war.  They want their post apocalyptic imam to come and make them all powerful.  That is what they LIVE for, and it doesn't take a genius to figure this stuff out.  Just some reading and looking at history and current events.  It all adds up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let's look at their history.  Everything I've seen Iran doing seems designed to defend themselves from being attacked.  I don't see them amassing troops, preparing for some sort of invasion somewhere.  Do you? The fact is that Iran has never started a war in the past 100 years.  They were attacked by Saddam Hussein in 1979, and responded by defending themselves in an all out war with that country.  Can you blame them for wanting to defend themselves?  So  what war do you suppose they want?
Click to expand...



Yes, let's look at history:

_
We’ll resist the temptation to attach labels to those making these claims or offer judgments on their love of country. Instead, some perspective:_

_
*In 1979, Senator Robert Byrd traveled to the Soviet Union during the SALT II talks to “personally explain the requirements of our Constitution” to Soviet premier Leonid Brezhnev. *Byrd later wrote: “In Leningrad, I explained that I had come to the Soviet Union neither to praise nor condemn the treaty but to create a better understanding of the treaty in the Senate and to explain to the Soviets the Senate’s constitutional role in treatymaking.”

* In the early 1980s, Senator Ted Kennedy secretly approached leaders of the Soviet Union with a proposal: I’ll help you with Ronald Reagan’s defense buildup if you help me defeat him in the 1984 presidential election.* Former senator John Tunney conveyed the offer on Kennedy’s behalf.

*In April 1985, as the Reagan administration sought to limit Soviet influence in Central America, Senator John Kerry traveled to Nicaragua, met with Communist strongman Daniel Ortega, and accused the Reagan administration of supporting “terrorism” against the government there. * Said Kerry, “Senator Harkin and I are going to Nicaragua as Vietnam-era veterans who are alarmed that the Reagan administration is repeating the mistakes we made in Vietnam.” Kerry’s trip followed a letter from a group of House Democrats led by majority leader Jim Wright to Ortega. The “Dear Comandante” letter declared: “We regret the fact that better relations do not exist between the United States and your country. We have been, and remain, opposed to U.S. support for military action directed against the people or government of Nicaragua. We want to commend you and your government for taking steps to open up the political process in your country.”

*In 1990, former President Jimmy Carter secretly wrote to the leaders of the U.N. Security Council nations urging them to oppose a resolution offered by his own country. *The existence of the letter was revealed when one of its recipients shared a copy with the White House. President George H. W. Bush was “furious” at the “deliberate attempt to undermine” his foreign policy, according to his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft.


I*n 2002, in the heat of the congressional debate over the authorization of the Iraq war, the second-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, David Bonior, traveled to Baghdad with two fellow Democrats to oppose the imminent invasion. *Democratic congressman Jim McDermott appeared on ABC’s This Week from Baghdad to denounce President George W. Bush and propagandize for Saddam Hussein. Shakir al-Khafaji, a well-known fixer for the Iraqi regime and a longtime supporter of Bonior, arranged the visit. The Democrats vigorously denied that they had accepted Iraqi regime funding for the trip. Documents uncovered in postwar Iraq demonstrated that their claim was untrue. 



*In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops.* Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.

_
A Contrived Controversy The Weekly Standard


----------



## orogenicman

boedicca said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool....  !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate, bub:
> 
> _
> * U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
> *
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Executive Branch
> Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
> *
> U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*
Click to expand...


Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.


----------



## boedicca

orogenicman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool....  !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate, bub:
> 
> _
> * U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
> *
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Executive Branch
> Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
> *
> U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.
Click to expand...



That's just moonbat spin.  The Obama Administration is negotiating directly, but claim it's a non-binding" plan:

_Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.

"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing...._

Iran deal A treaty or not a treaty that is the question - CNN.com


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has been known to back all kinds of terrorists if it benefits them.  Look, these are just the facts.  Sorry if you don't want to admit them to yourself and prefer to live with your head buried in the sand believing that Obama will take care of you.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
Click to expand...


ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony 

_Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _


Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”

Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.

The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.

It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1

It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## orogenicman

boedicca said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool....  !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate, bub:
> 
> _
> * U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
> *
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Executive Branch
> Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
> *
> U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.
Click to expand...


It is a fact.  He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran.  The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S.  Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI


----------



## ChrisL

Continued . . .

*The ISIS-Iran-Syria Axis*
The ISIS connection with the Syrian leadership, and hence with Iran, raises serious questions.  It was recently noted that President Assad released ISIS operatives from his prisons and for the most part left it alone, sparing it from attacks by the Syrian army.2 A _New York Times_ reporter recently wrote on her Twitter account that according to a Syrian government advisor, ISIS was not a priority for Assad’s regime.3 Two leading American analysts just wrote in the _Washington Post_, “The non-jihadist Syrian opposition insists that ISIS is a creation of Iran.”4

The more time passes, the more this notion of a link between ISIS, Syrian and even Iranian intelligence has become fixed in the minds of leading Arab analysts as well. For example, Abdul Rahman al-Rashid, a Saudi commentator for _Asharq Al-Awsat_ and also director of the influential TV channel _Al Arabiya_, wrote: “ISIS is a creation of Iranian and Syrian intelligence…. Most [of its members] are in the dark [and do not know] they are being manipulated, and some of the al-Qaeda leaders are still living in Iran.5

Abdel Bari Atwan, editor of the online daily _Al-Rai Al-Youm_, also saw ISIS’ advance as an Iranian success,6 and for similar reasons, claiming it would enable Iran and the United States to coordinate their moves in Iraq and possibly in Syria as well.

The US Department of the Treasury released a statement designating the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) as a supporter of international terrorist organizations. The US document, published on February 16, 2012,7 specifically stated that the Sunni “al-Qaeda in Iraq” was provided with money and weapons by the Iranian ministry. Within 14 months al-Qaeda in Iraq would be renamed ISIS (see below). Thus, the notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.8

*Background*
ISIS was established on April 8, 2013, when its subsidiary organization, Jabhat al Nusra, merged with the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), which itself was a successor to al-Qaeda in Iraq.9

The organization’s leader is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who regards himself as the heir to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and as no less fierce.10 Immediately after al-Baghdadi’s release from an American prison in 2006, not long before Zarqawi was assassinated, they met, and in the wake of the killing al-Baghdadi was crowned the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq and dubbed it “the al-Qaeda Organization of Mesopotamia.”

After the revolt against President Bashar Assad erupted in Syria, the organization emerged in Syria under the new name of ISIS. There it quickly clashed with its former al-Qaeda branch, already active in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra or the al-Nusra Front headed by Abu Muhammad al-Jawlani. The head of al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, subsequently decided to eject ISIS from the al-Qaeda network, even though ideologically they remained virtually identical groups.

*ISIS in Iraq*
What enabled ISIS’ rapid success in Iraq was the alliance it forged with powerful forces there that previously were reluctant to cooperate with a Salafi organization. These include the Bedouin tribes in the Sunni areas, the Sahwa tribes that previously had cooperated with the Americans, remnants of Saddam Hussein’s old army headed by his deputy Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, and the armed Sufi order, the Naqshbandis, who also are led by al-Douri.

The clash between ISIS and al-Nusra sparked accusations that the former was nothing but a means for the Syrian Mukhabarat (Military Intelligence Directorate), along with the Iranians, to plant agents of the Assad regime and of Iran within the Syrian opposition, thereby spreading confusion in its ranks and diverting it from the fight against Assad into internecine struggle. Immediately after ISIS emerged in the Syrian theater, sources in the Syrian opposition told this author: “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”11

The daily _Al-Quds Al-Arabi_ reported that “Emir Raqqah” (the emir of ar-Raqqah, a city in north central Syria), also known as Abu Lukman, had been imprisoned in Syria but was released by the Syrian regime immediately after the outbreak of the Syrian revolt12 The release of jihadi prisoners became a pattern.  In the days of President George W. Bush, Syria would send al-Qaeda operatives to Iraq to attack US forces. Subsequently relations cooled and Syria incarcerated these fighters. But after the revolt began, Syrian intelligence again took an interest in them, and freed them – in full coordination with Iran – so that they could infiltrate the ranks of the Salafis now fighting in Syria. Once free, they broke into Iraqi prisons to liberate their comrades, thereby creating the basis for expanding ISIS.13

Seemingly, the Sunni successes against the Shiites in Iraq would evoke words of encouragement and support from Saudi elements who view Iraq’s Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, as one of their country’s chief enemies. That is not, however, what happened. It was indeed strange to find the Saudi commentator Abdul Rahman al-Rashid asserting that it was in fact Iran that was benefiting from the exploits of ISIS!14 He explained that Iran and the United States are now allies, and Iran, should it so desire, now has an opportunity to invade Iraq.  Rashid, however, did not see Iran as intending to do so.

The doubts that ISIS is a genuine al-Qaeda type movement were, in fact, raised immediately by “real” Salafi movements. For example, Nabil Naim, an al-Qaeda member who had left the movement and was acquainted with ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, said15 it was the latter who had assisted the Assad regime, in the days of President Bush, in transferring al-Qaeda fighters from Lebanon to Iraq. The daily a_l-Hayat_ published a similar report claiming that a USB flash drive, captured by the Iraqi army during the battle for Mosul from one of the ISIS leaders, “Abu Hajr,” had revealed the identity of many ISIS members who were indeed among those Syria had sent to fight the US Army in Iraq.16

A look at the websites of ISIS reveals that the rank and file are not at all aware of being Iranian tools. On the contrary, their anti-Shiite sentiment burns fiercely. Their acts of cruelty against the Iraqi regime’s Shiite army point in the same direction. Indeed, al-Maliki directly accused Saudi Arabia of standing behind ISIS17 though the United States hastened to condemn him for his words.18 Saudi Arabia itself has expressed concern over the situation in Iraq.19

- See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony


----------



## boedicca

orogenicman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate, bub:
> 
> _
> * U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
> *
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Executive Branch
> Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
> *
> U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact.  He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran.  The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S.  Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.
> 
> Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI
Click to expand...



You are spewing nonsense.  The Obama Admin is negotiating directly with Iran.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
Click to expand...


Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis.  Your link seems mostly fiction.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate, bub:
> 
> _
> * U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
> *
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Executive Branch
> Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
> *
> U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact.  He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran.  The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S.  Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.
> 
> Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI
Click to expand...


So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?  Is that what you're claiming now?  The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then support your facts with links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
Click to expand...


So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis.  Your link seems mostly fiction.
Click to expand...


Oh, they have a general?  Wow!  That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not.    Iran are propaganda masters.  Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over mutinous Iran letter - The Washington Post*

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” *The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said*
*Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton*

*





Senior Advisor
*


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis.  Your link seems mostly fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, they have a general?  Wow!  That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not.    Iran are propaganda masters.  Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?
Click to expand...


I didn't see facts, it was fiction.  The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already have.  I've posted many, many links here in this thread.  Such as . . .
> 
> How Iran Is Making It Impossible for the US to Beat ISIS - The Daily Beast
> 
> Now the Twelfth Imam Can Come FrontPage Magazine
> 
> Ex-Ambassador Eric Javits Bad Iran Nuclear Deal Is Disaster
> 
> And more . . .
> 
> Now the facts have been laid out in front of you, the beliefs of the Iranian mullahs in a post apocalyptic imam, their support for terrorism of all and any kind if it is of benefit to them, how they are incredibly dishonest and shady and will spread propaganda and lies to make themselves believable to the gullible liberals of the western world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.
Click to expand...


Give me a link to where Iran is actively participating in the ISIS situation.  What exactly have they done?  

You need to be able to read between the lines where Iran is concerned.  

Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”

General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.

The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.

In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.

But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.

The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces. 

This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that  Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”

Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*10 Horrifying Facts About GOP Senator Tom Cotton*
*Medea Benjamin, Nalini Ramachandran / AlterNet *


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate, bub:
> 
> _
> * U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
> *
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Executive Branch
> Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
> *
> U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact.  He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran.  The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S.  Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.
> 
> Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?  Is that what you're claiming now?  The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.
Click to expand...


Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East?  They understand what is at stake far more than you do.  That much is obvious.  They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people.  And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country.  They came to us, asking for discussions.  They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working.  You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences.  That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10958476
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of my posts have been backed with facts and links, not pictures from google images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not this one:
> 
> ChrL 10956880
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know _*that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I challenged your undocumented fact here:
> 
> NF 10957416
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So as you claim that all of your posts have been backed with facts, that is indeed not a fact. So are two misstated facts right there.
Click to expand...


I provided you with an in-depth poll, including the specific questions asked and the percentages, which shows that most Americans are against a nuclear Iran.  That was a Gallup poll and was much more in depth than your post.  Go back and read it, and you will see that you are wrong.  

If you think, for one minute, that Americans support a nuclear Iran, then you are the one who is a dingbat around here.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate, bub:
> 
> _
> * U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
> *
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Executive Branch
> Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
> *
> U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact.  He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran.  The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S.  Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.
> 
> Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?  Is that what you're claiming now?  The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East?  They understand what is at stake far more than you do.  That much is obvious.  They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people.  And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country.  They came to us, asking for discussions.  They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working.  You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences.  That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.
Click to expand...


Did you read my link about the Iran/Syra/ISIS connection?

There is no "discussing" things with the insane, and the Iranian regime is insanity defined.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis.  Your link seems mostly fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, they have a general?  Wow!  That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not.    Iran are propaganda masters.  Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see facts, it was fiction.  The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.
Click to expand...


You just keep repeating that.  Lol.  Obviously you cannot understand the links I've provided for you to read.


----------



## HenryBHough

If Iran were to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth there's would be immediate action from Regime Obama.
*
Apology for having having made Iran so long.*


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your links seems to support Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link to where Iran is actively participating in the ISIS situation.  What exactly have they done?
Click to expand...


Iran Looms Over ISIS Fight as Baghdad-Tehran Alliance Moves to Tikrit



			
				ChrisL said:
			
		

> You need to be able to read between the lines where Iran is concerned.
> 
> Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”
> 
> General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.
> 
> The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.
> 
> In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.
> 
> But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.
> 
> The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces.
> 
> This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that  Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”
> 
> Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.



When you copy and poste from someone's publication, you need to give a citation.  Otherwise, you could be accused of plagiarism.


----------



## Lakhota

Senator Tom Cotton seems to be getting a lot of funding from Jewish groups.  Interesting...

Israel lobby's fingerprints are all over Republican letter to Iran but the media won't talk about it

Militaristic senator Cotton is funded by Abrams, Adelson and Kristol

Tom Cotton Gets Funds From Israeli Panel in Ark. Senate Race

You Will Be Shocked To Know Who's Been Grooming Tehran Tom - Crooks and Liars


----------



## bendog

boedicca said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool....  !!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed.  Congress is an equal branch of government and not subservient to any President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is true.  Having said that, there are clear separations of powers.  One of those is that the president is responsible for determining foreign policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite accurate, bub:
> 
> _
> * U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2*
> *
> 
> 
> Article 2 - The Executive Branch
> Section 2 - Civilian Power Over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
> <<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>
> 
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
> 
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments....*_
> *
> U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> 
> 2/3 of the Senate has not concurred.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's just moonbat spin.  The Obama Administration is negotiating directly, but claim it's a non-binding" plan:
> 
> _Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.
> 
> "We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing...._
> 
> Iran deal A treaty or not a treaty that is the question - CNN.com
Click to expand...


Not a treaty.  CNN's just doing its usual spinning of "we must treat all opinions as though they are thoughtful and reasonable, even if a blind bat should know better."  Tom Cotton's cottonpickkng numskull prank illustrates why it's nonbinding.  Even assuming Iran complies, the US may still try to re-ramp up santions when there's a new potus.  Thus, the US makes no promises binding our future behavior.


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link to where Iran is actively participating in the ISIS situation.  What exactly have they done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran Looms Over ISIS Fight as Baghdad-Tehran Alliance Moves to Tikrit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be able to read between the lines where Iran is concerned.
> 
> Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”
> 
> General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.
> 
> The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.
> 
> In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.
> 
> But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.
> 
> The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces.
> 
> This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that  Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”
> 
> Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you copy and poste from someone's publication, you need to give a citation.  Otherwise, you could be accused of plagiarism.
Click to expand...


The link is at the bottom of the page, and my second post stated that it was a continuation because I didn't want to put all of that info on the same page.  It is still credited at the bottom of the page, as are ALL of my data.  

And here is more . . . 

Syrian Kurds blame Iran Turkey for ISIS attacks - Al-Monitor the Pulse of the Middle East

QAMISHLI, Syria — Redur Xelil, spokesman for the Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG), spoke to _Al-Monitor_ about the intensified clashes between the al-Qaeda splinter group, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) and the Kurds in northern Syria. For the first time, the YPG openly called on Kurds from outside of Syria to join the movement.

Summary⎙ Print Syria's main Kurdish force, the Democratic Union Party, says that the ISIS battle with Syrian Kurdish groups is benefiting the Syrian government.
Author Wladimir van WilgenburgPosted Март 30, 2014
ISIS, formerly an al-Qaeda affiliate, has been assaulting the Kurdish inhabited city of Kobani in the province of Aleppo from three sides since March 15. This area is one of the three regions where the Kurds announced autonomous canton administrations close to the border with Turkey.

Kobani holds a symbolic role as the first town that was captured by Kurdish forces on July 19, 2012, as part of a campaign to control Kurdish areas. The creation of the YPG was also first announced in the city in 2012. “Kobani was the first city that was liberated from the regime in Rojava [the western part of Kurdistan in Syria],” said Xelil.

According to Xelil, there are two main rationales behind the attacks on Kobani. First, he said ISIS' agenda is to expand to other regions. Second, he said the regime is having a hard time with the Kurds, and may be engaged in a campaign to weaken them "and remove the new democratic experiment of the Kurds.”

It is not just the YPG and Kurdish parties affiliated with the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) such as the Democratic Union Party (PYD) that think the regime is behind the attacks. The rival Kurdish coalition, the Kurdish National Council (KNC) backed by Massoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, concurs that the regime might be playing a role.

Ismail Heme, a member of a KNC party, told _Al-Monitor_, “Perhaps the regime is playing this game to weaken both ISIS and the PYD.”

On March 12, Syrian government forces killed a YPG fighter in Qamishli after ISIS suicide attacks took the lives of several civilians in the same city. “The regime is trying to weaken the Kurds. They also know we are in a fight with the ISIS. Our fight with ISIS is serving the regime no doubt,” Xelil said.

Kurdish politicians such as PYD leader Salih Muslim also blame Iran and Turkey for the ISIS attacks. “I think there is an Iranian hand in this. This is how we can explain this attack of the ISIS in Kobani,” Xelil added.

The YPG hopes that with the support of other Kurds, they can open the road from Hassakeh province to the isolated enclave of Kobani. “If they support us, we can open the way from Jazeera [Hassakeh province] to Kobani,” Xelil said.

On March 24, the YPG called on all Kurdish parties in Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria to unite against the jihadist threats against the Kurdish regions in Syria.

“The aim of the attack is the Kurdish existence in general. We don’t think the attacks will be limited to Kobani. They threaten all Kurdish people. The statement was for the Kurds to unite against the ISIS,” Xelil said.



Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/ru/...-isis-syria-regime-kobani.html##ixzz3UIKsmIwH


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

At the recent CPAC gathering, *Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)*, a likely Republican presidential candidate, seemed to stumble on one of the basic facts of the Middle East. *“The reason Obama hasn’t put in place a military strategy to defeat ISIS is because he doesn’t want to upset Iran,”* the Florida Republican said.

The senator seemed confused. *In reality, President Obama has put an anti-ISIS military strategy in place, and that’s fine with Iran, since Iran and ISIS are enemies.*

I’d hoped that Rubio just misspoke, or had been briefed poorly by an aide, but apparently not - -at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this afternoon, the far-right Floridian continued to push this strange theory, pressing Secretary of State John Kerry on the point. “I believe that much of our strategy with regards to ISIS is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran so they don’t walk away from the negotiating table on the deal that you’re working on,” Rubio said. “Tell me why I’m wrong.”

And so, Kerry told him why he’s wrong.

*Kerry teaches Rubio the basics about the Middle East | MSNBC*


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis.  Your link seems mostly fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, they have a general?  Wow!  That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not.    Iran are propaganda masters.  Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see facts, it was fiction.  The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep repeating that.  Lol.  Obviously you cannot understand the links I've provided for you to read.
Click to expand...


Hatchet-Wielding Lunatic Kills ISIS Thrills Iran The Daily Caller


----------



## ChrisL

orogenicman said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really, where is that?  Post it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You post where any of them say Iran is helping Isis.  They are your links.  Let's see a quote.  The first one is quite clear Iran is helping those fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link to where Iran is actively participating in the ISIS situation.  What exactly have they done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran Looms Over ISIS Fight as Baghdad-Tehran Alliance Moves to Tikrit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to be able to read between the lines where Iran is concerned.
> 
> Testifying on Capitol Hill on March 3, Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey characterized the joint attempts of the Iraqi military, Iraqi Shia militias, and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) at taking back control of Tikrit, Saddam Hussein’s hometown, from the Islamic State, as “a positive thing.” “Frankly,” General Dempsey said, “it will only be a problem if it results in sectarianism.”
> 
> General Dempsey’s caveat is an interesting one, since there is every reason to believe that Shia control of Tikrit will result in further sectarianism. While the US administration says in its most recent National Security Strategy that it desires to “degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL [Islamic State]” in an attempt to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists,” Tehran is actively perpetuating the sectarian crisis in Iraq.
> 
> The threat of the Islamic State, coupled with American “strategic patience,” not only makes the Iraqi Shia more dependent on Tehran and legitimizes Iran’s military presence in Iraq, it also provides the regime in Tehran with another bargaining chip in nuclear negotiations with the P5+1 Group.
> 
> In the past, the Iraqi Shia have demonstrated little interest in reducing themselves to puppets of Tehran. During the war with Iraq from 1980-1988, Iraqi nationalism trumped sectarian identity: the Shia constituted the rank and file of the Iraqi military, and Shia leaders in Iraq kept their distance from the regime in Tehran. After the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, Iraq became a sanctuary to Iranian clerics critical of the regime in Tehran, including Hossein Khomeini, grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic.
> 
> But Iraq did not remain a refuge for long. The civil war in Iraq, followed by the rise of Islamic State, forced moderate Iraqi Shia, who otherwise would have pursued a line independent of Iran, to become dependencies of Tehran. After being rebuffed by the US following the Islamic State’s takeover of Mosul in 2014, General Qassem Atta, head of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service, asked Tehran for help and received assistance within 48 hours. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al Abadi continues to press Washington for more support in his fight against the Islamic State and uses US hesitancy to justify reliance on Iran, which according to Vice President Iyad Allawi, only increases Iran’s influence in Iraq and could lead to dismantlement of the Iraqi state.
> 
> The Obama administration may desire to help secure the survival of the Iraqi state, but the small contingent of US advisers in Iraq is relying on a heavily Iranian-influenced Iraqi sectarian intelligence and security apparatus. The Iraqi security forces are predominantly Shia, and in addition, Shia militias and “advisers” from the IRGC Quds Force are now fighting as legitimate Iraqi forces.
> 
> This creates an environment in which targeting operations developed by Iranian forces and the militias have primacy over those developed by the US, leading to the possibility that  Washington could be portrayed by Islamic State as complicit in the indiscriminate targeting of Sunnis. Such operations will be perceived the same way by the very Sunnis we need to fight Islamic State, thus undermining the US strategy to “support Iraq … free itself from sectarian conflict and the scourge of extremists.”
> 
> Any US reliance on Iranian support in the fight against the Islamic State is also likely to strengthen Tehran’s bargaining position in the nuclear negotiations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you copy and poste from someone's publication, you need to give a citation.  Otherwise, you could be accused of plagiarism.
Click to expand...


Oh, I did forget the link on that particular post.  Here it is . . . Analysis Iran is no partner in the fight against the Islamic State The Long War Journal


----------



## ChrisL

All of the recent events in the ME are advantageous to Iran.  

Analysis Iran is no partner in the fight against the Islamic State The Long War Journal

Although both US and Iranian negotiators maintain that nothing but the nuclear issue is being discussed, this of course is fiction. On Sept. 22, Fars News, quoting an anonymous American source, reported that Secretary of State John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, discussed the nuclear issue as well as the fight against the Islamic State. And Admiral Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Secretary, has also connected both issues. Clearly, Tehran’s cooperation with Washington in the fight against the Islamic State comes at a price, which Washington must pay at the negotiating table in Geneva.

Iran has Washington where it wants it. Iran wants a favorable deal, and the Obama administration is signaling that such a deal is forthcoming. US “strategic patience” is allowing Iran to increase its influence and presence in Iraq and Syria. Assad is waiting out the Americans and the international community, and Shia militias are now viewed as legitimate forces in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. But most importantly, US “strategic patience” signals to Iran an unwillingness to jeopardize the talks by linking them to Iran’s role in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen. 

Iran benefits from the threat of an Islamic State, and if the US continues its courtship of Tehran, it may find the Islamic State replaced by an Islamic Republic.

_Ali Alfoneh is a senior fellow at Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Michael P. Pregent is a former intelligence officer and military adviser and now adjunct at National Defense University._


----------



## bendog

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is not negotiating a treaty with Iran.  He, and the rest of the UN Security Council are negotiating to get Iran to comply with a treaty that is already in effect, the NNPT, which was signed by 191 countries, including the U.S. and Iran.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a fact.  He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran.  The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S.  Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.
> 
> Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?  Is that what you're claiming now?  The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East?  They understand what is at stake far more than you do.  That much is obvious.  They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people.  And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country.  They came to us, asking for discussions.  They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working.  You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences.  That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read my link about the Iran/Syra/ISIS connection?
> 
> There is no "discussing" things with the insane, and the Iranian regime is insanity defined.
Click to expand...

Well, at least you've come out clearly.  And, as I recall, you linked to an Israeli site.  The Iranians are dangerous, but not insane.  They didn't attack the towers.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> _Vol. 14, No. 21   June 20, 2014  _
> 
> 
> Immediately after ISIS emerged in Syria, sources in the Syrian opposition said, “We are familiar with the commanders of ISIS. Once they belonged to Assad’s intelligence, and now they are operating on his behalf under the name of ISIS.”
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> The battle currently being waged over the city of Deir ez-Zor in eastern Syria reveals a great deal about the political orientation of the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham (or ISIS), that recently captured Mosul and large stretches of Iraqi territory hundreds of kilometers away to the south. The siege of Deir ez-Zor has been maintained by the army of Bashar al-Assad in the south and by ISIS to the north and east. Among the forces that have been trapped in the middle are the Free Syrian Army (FSA), raising the question of whether ISIS was colluding with the Syrian government and its Iranian allies to defeat the more mainstream elements of the Syrian opposition.1
> 
> It must be recalled that since the outbreak of the uprising in Syria, and the widespread deployment of Iranian security services there, Iran’s intelligence networks are fully aware of the Syrian military’s activities. Today, given the extraordinary dependence of the Syrian state on Iran, it is difficult to imagine that Tehran is not fully updated on the security policies the Assad regime pursues.
> 
> - See more at: ISIS Iran s Instrument for Regional Hegemony
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis.  Your link seems mostly fiction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, they have a general?  Wow!  That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not.    Iran are propaganda masters.  Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see facts, it was fiction.  The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep repeating that.  Lol.  Obviously you cannot understand the links I've provided for you to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hatchet-Wielding Lunatic Kills ISIS Thrills Iran The Daily Caller
Click to expand...


From your link . . . 

Iranian proxies have been using social media as a tool for making them appear like legitimate agents since before the rise of the Islamic State- and in a more advanced manner- according to Smyth.

Kataib al-Imam Ali was launched about a month after the Islamic State overran Mosul in June, 2014. The militia’s secretary-general, Shebl al-Zaidi, is a brutal, sectarian fighter who was cultivated by the Iranians, says Smyth. He was imprisoned by the U.S. during the war in Iraq and released by the Iraqi government in 2010.

Zaidi has been photographed with Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani, a powerful operative who’s leading the offensive to retake Tikrit from the Islamic State.*(RELATED: Top Iranian General Is Taking The Lead Against ISIS, Spreading Iranian Influence Across Middle East) *

Although currently fighting the Islamic State, these Iranian proxies pose a serious, long-term threat to American interests. According to an analysis by Smyth:

Although these radical militias are fighting ISIS in parallel with the U.S.-led effort, their actions and sectarian agendas are separate from the coalition’s and run counter to the goal of building inclusive governments and societies in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, Kataib al-Imam Ali and its ilk present long-term threats to regional stability and U.S. interests.

The militia is even trying to train up Christians and indoctrinate them into believing they’ve been abandoned by the West. Kataib al-Imam Ali ”set about training Christians for a subgroup called Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam (The Brigade of the Spirit of God Jesus Son of Mary),” wrote Smyth.


----------



## ChrisL

bendog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the Obama spin, but it only fools moonbats such as you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact.  He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran.  The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S.  Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.
> 
> Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?  Is that what you're claiming now?  The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East?  They understand what is at stake far more than you do.  That much is obvious.  They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people.  And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country.  They came to us, asking for discussions.  They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working.  You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences.  That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read my link about the Iran/Syra/ISIS connection?
> 
> There is no "discussing" things with the insane, and the Iranian regime is insanity defined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least you've come out clearly.  And, as I recall, you linked to an Israeli site.  The Iranians are dangerous, but not insane.  They didn't attack the towers.
Click to expand...


They are insane.  They want a post apocalyptic world so that their 12th Imam can come and deem them the rulers of the world.  Are you people really this naive?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has a general in Iraq fighting Isis.  Your link seems mostly fiction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, they have a general?  Wow!  That really takes away all the facts in my links . . . Not.    Iran are propaganda masters.  Where do you think the palestinians learned it from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't see facts, it was fiction.  The fact is Iran is fighting Isis now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just keep repeating that.  Lol.  Obviously you cannot understand the links I've provided for you to read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hatchet-Wielding Lunatic Kills ISIS Thrills Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From your link . . .
> 
> Iranian proxies have been using social media as a tool for making them appear like legitimate agents since before the rise of the Islamic State- and in a more advanced manner- according to Smyth.
> 
> Kataib al-Imam Ali was launched about a month after the Islamic State overran Mosul in June, 2014. The militia’s secretary-general, Shebl al-Zaidi, is a brutal, sectarian fighter who was cultivated by the Iranians, says Smyth. He was imprisoned by the U.S. during the war in Iraq and released by the Iraqi government in 2010.
> 
> Zaidi has been photographed with Iranian Gen. Qassem Suleimani, a powerful operative who’s leading the offensive to retake Tikrit from the Islamic State.*(RELATED: Top Iranian General Is Taking The Lead Against ISIS, Spreading Iranian Influence Across Middle East) *
> 
> Although currently fighting the Islamic State, these Iranian proxies pose a serious, long-term threat to American interests. According to an analysis by Smyth:
> 
> Although these radical militias are fighting ISIS in parallel with the U.S.-led effort, their actions and sectarian agendas are separate from the coalition’s and run counter to the goal of building inclusive governments and societies in Iraq and Syria. Indeed, Kataib al-Imam Ali and its ilk present long-term threats to regional stability and U.S. interests.
> 
> The militia is even trying to train up Christians and indoctrinate them into believing they’ve been abandoned by the West. Kataib al-Imam Ali ”set about training Christians for a subgroup called Kataib Rouh Allah Issa Ibn Miriam (The Brigade of the Spirit of God Jesus Son of Mary),” wrote Smyth.
Click to expand...


Yes it confirms they are fighting Isis.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact.  He doesn't need to negotiate a treaty with Iran.  The issue of them potentially building nuclear weapons falls under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory, as is the U.S.  Perhaps you should read it instead of making a fool out of yourself with your sophomoric name calling.
> 
> Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT Treaties Regimes NTI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you think that a treaty is going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?  Is that what you're claiming now?  The Obama administration and other liberal administrations around the world are trying to appease Iran obviously.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East?  They understand what is at stake far more than you do.  That much is obvious.  They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people.  And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country.  They came to us, asking for discussions.  They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working.  You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences.  That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read my link about the Iran/Syra/ISIS connection?
> 
> There is no "discussing" things with the insane, and the Iranian regime is insanity defined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least you've come out clearly.  And, as I recall, you linked to an Israeli site.  The Iranians are dangerous, but not insane.  They didn't attack the towers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are insane.  They want a post apocalyptic world so that their 12th Imam can come and deem them the rulers of the world.  Are you people really this naive?
Click to expand...


Sure they do.  Sounds like fiction.  Fact is they are fighting Isis.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> Here is the poll I posted which is much more in depth. Read it please.




All I could find here since you can't bother to show which poll you are referring to was this;



> *NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll* conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). March 1-5, 2015. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide.
> 
> .*"And, thinking about Iran: As you may know, the United States is currently in negotiations with Iran that would limit, for at least ten years, Iran's ability to produce nuclear material. The deal would not end Iran's nuclear program, but would delay Iran's ability to produce enough materials to make nuclear weapons. In return, the United States and other Western nations would ease economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iran, and would eventually allow Iran to use nuclear power for other purposes, like energy. Do you think that this agreement will make a real difference or will not make a real difference in preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons?"*
> 
> *Will make a real difference* 24%
> *Will not make a real difference* 71%
> *Unsure. 5%.     *3/1-5/15



That does not refute the fact that the majority of Americans in poll after poll support the negotiations and reaching a deal. 

Did you bother reading these polls you linked to?

*
CBS News/New York Times Poll*. June 20-22, 2014. *"Do you favor or oppose the United States working with Iran in a limited capacity in order to try and resolve the situation in Iraq?"  * 6/20-22/14.            53% Favor.  39% oppose


*ABC News/Washington Post Poll*. Nov. 14-17, 2013.  *"Thinking now about the situation with Iran: Would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?"  Support 64%* *Oppose* *30% *11/14-17/13

*"How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"
Very confident*  4%      *Somewhat confident*  32%   *Not so confident* 27%  *Not confident. 34%. *11/14-17/13

*CNN/ORC Poll*. Sept. 27-29, 2013. *"Would you favor or oppose direct diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" Favor*  76%   *Oppose* *22%.  *9/27-29/13


The recent poll I cited from UoM has not changed much since 2013. 

A majority of Americans support making this deal with Iran and always have. 

To state otherwise is a lie.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts.    Then we have others posting memes off google images.
> 
> I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.



Here, this for you, chrisy 

_*delusion,* in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence._


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the poll I posted which is much more in depth. Read it please.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I could find here since you can't bother to show which poll you are referring to was this;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll* conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). March 1-5, 2015. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide.
> 
> .*"And, thinking about Iran: As you may know, the United States is currently in negotiations with Iran that would limit, for at least ten years, Iran's ability to produce nuclear material. The deal would not end Iran's nuclear program, but would delay Iran's ability to produce enough materials to make nuclear weapons. In return, the United States and other Western nations would ease economic sanctions that have been imposed on Iran, and would eventually allow Iran to use nuclear power for other purposes, like energy. Do you think that this agreement will make a real difference or will not make a real difference in preventing Iran from producing nuclear weapons?"*
> 
> *Will make a real difference* 24%
> *Will not make a real difference* 71%
> *Unsure. 5%.     *3/1-5/15
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That does not refute the fact that the majority of Americans in poll after poll support the negotiations and reaching a deal.
> 
> Did you bother reading these polls you linked to?
> 
> *
> CBS News/New York Times Poll*. June 20-22, 2014. *"Do you favor or oppose the United States working with Iran in a limited capacity in order to try and resolve the situation in Iraq?"  * 6/20-22/14.            53% Favor.  39% oppose
> 
> 
> *ABC News/Washington Post Poll*. Nov. 14-17, 2013.  *"Thinking now about the situation with Iran: Would you support or oppose an agreement in which the United States and other countries would lift some of their economic sanctions against Iran, in exchange for Iran restricting its nuclear program in a way that makes it harder for it to produce nuclear weapons?"  Support 64%* *Oppose* *30% *11/14-17/13
> 
> *"How confident are you that such an agreement would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons: very confident, somewhat confident, not so confident or not confident at all?"
> Very confident*  4%      *Somewhat confident*  32%   *Not so confident* 27%  *Not confident. 34%. *11/14-17/13
> 
> *CNN/ORC Poll*. Sept. 27-29, 2013. *"Would you favor or oppose direct diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?" Favor*  76%   *Oppose* *22%.  *9/27-29/13
> 
> 
> The recent poll I cited from UoM has not changed much since 2013.
> 
> A majority of Americans support making this deal with Iran and always have.
> 
> To state otherwise is a lie.
Click to expand...


No, I don't think you read the entire poll.  It clearly states that Americans are against a nuclear Iran.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts.    Then we have others posting memes off google images.
> 
> I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, this for you, chrisy
> 
> _*delusion,* in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence._
Click to expand...


That describes Iran, the people that Obama wants to have nuclear power.   

Here's some more information for you too.  

Iran The Great Satan Still Our Number One Enemy FrontPage Magazine


----------



## ChrisL

Here is another poll . . . 



*Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat*

Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.







As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts.    Then we have others posting memes off google images.
> 
> I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, this for you, chrisy
> 
> _*delusion,* in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence._
Click to expand...


Also, this does nothing to negate my claims which are all correct.  You cannot refute them, so this is what you are reduced to.  Pathetic.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts.    Then we have others posting memes off google images.
> 
> I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here, this for you, chrisy
> 
> _*delusion,* in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence._
Click to expand...


Also, you spelled "Chrissy" wrong, but that is not surprising given the examples of your intellect here, which is apparently very low on the totem pole.  I also think it's funny as hell that the two biggest dummies liked this post with no substance, which was just meant to be insulting but does nothing to add to the debate or to negate any of the well-documented posts I've made on this topic.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Here is another poll . . .
> 
> 
> 
> *Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat*
> 
> Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably



It's about how to have them not get a nuke.   Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.


----------



## nat4900

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over mutinous Iran letter - The Washington Post*
> 
> “What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” *The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said*
> *Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> *Senior Advisor*



The mounting criticism against all the other 46 and especially directed
toward the seditious Cotton, are NOT going to stop for quite a while.....Can you picture what his next opponent's ads will look like?


----------



## ChrisL

So, some smart senators realize the terrible consequences that are going to happen with a nuclear Iran, along with blessings of the US, and they decided to write a letter to the Iranian leadership to let them know that most of us know better and there will be no nuclear agreement once the Obamanator is out of office, and the libs blow a gasket because they are undermining Obama?  I think Obama has undermined himself by agreeing to this little deal, not to mention all of his past foreign relation disasters.  The guy is completely clueless, and a lot of people know this.  Sending Obama a letter would be useless.  Remember his little temper tantrum with McCain when discussing the healthcare bill?  How he declared that it was HE who was president now and basically stated nobody else's opinions matter.   

Obama is a like a child-like wanna be celebrity.  He likes to feel important and hobknob with the celebrities and the rich, trying to make a name for himself with the unconstitutional healthcare fiasco which he mandated upon us all in a shady manner as claiming it to be a "tax."  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another poll . . .
> 
> 
> 
> *Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat*
> 
> Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about how to have them not get a nuke.   Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.
Click to expand...


Only a liberal could make sense of such a statement.  Basically you are saying that by okaying a nuclear Iran that is going to prevent them from developing nukes.     I'll have to give you a "funny" for that one.


----------



## nat4900

TyroneSlothrop said:


> At the recent CPAC gathering, *Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)*, a likely Republican presidential candidate, seemed to stumble on one of the basic facts of the Middle East. *“The reason Obama hasn’t put in place a military strategy to defeat ISIS is because he doesn’t want to upset Iran,”* the Florida Republican said.
> 
> The senator seemed confused. *In reality, President Obama has put an anti-ISIS military strategy in place, and that’s fine with Iran, since Iran and ISIS are enemies.*
> 
> I’d hoped that Rubio just misspoke, or had been briefed poorly by an aide, but apparently not - -at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this afternoon, the far-right Floridian continued to push this strange theory, pressing Secretary of State John Kerry on the point. “I believe that much of our strategy with regards to ISIS is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran so they don’t walk away from the negotiating table on the deal that you’re working on,” Rubio said. “Tell me why I’m wrong.”
> 
> And so, Kerry told him why he’s wrong.
> View attachment 37800
> *Kerry teaches Rubio the basics about the Middle East | MSNBC*



To state that Rubio is an idiot....is to insult idiots......Yeah, GOPers pick Rubio for your next VP candidate......LOL


----------



## bendog

He walked with dinosaurs.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> At the recent CPAC gathering, *Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)*, a likely Republican presidential candidate, seemed to stumble on one of the basic facts of the Middle East. *“The reason Obama hasn’t put in place a military strategy to defeat ISIS is because he doesn’t want to upset Iran,”* the Florida Republican said.
> 
> The senator seemed confused. *In reality, President Obama has put an anti-ISIS military strategy in place, and that’s fine with Iran, since Iran and ISIS are enemies.*
> 
> I’d hoped that Rubio just misspoke, or had been briefed poorly by an aide, but apparently not - -at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing this afternoon, the far-right Floridian continued to push this strange theory, pressing Secretary of State John Kerry on the point. “I believe that much of our strategy with regards to ISIS is being driven by a desire not to upset Iran so they don’t walk away from the negotiating table on the deal that you’re working on,” Rubio said. “Tell me why I’m wrong.”
> 
> And so, Kerry told him why he’s wrong.
> View attachment 37800
> *Kerry teaches Rubio the basics about the Middle East | MSNBC*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To state that Rubio is an idiot....is to insult idiots......Yeah, GOPers pick Rubio for your next VP candidate......LOL
Click to expand...


And you picked Obama.    Look at the condition of the world now!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.




Those are opinions not facts: 

This makes no sense whatsoever:  "Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border." 

It's fine with a strong Shiite majority state and never in a billion years would Iran want Northern and Western Iraq crawling with Shiitte murdering Sunni terrorists that would threaten to take over Baghdad and keep coming to Tehran. 

How dumb does this guy think the rest of the world is?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another poll . . .
> 
> 
> 
> *Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat*
> 
> Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about how to have them not get a nuke.   Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a liberal could make sense of such a statement.  Basically you are saying that by okaying a nuclear Iran that is going to prevent them from developing nukes.     I'll have to give you a "funny" for that one.
Click to expand...


Who is okaying a nuclear Iran?  Nobody is doing that.  How can someone who knows so little post so much?  It's embarassing.


----------



## bendog

John McCain, "Wow, I coulda had a V-8"  (-:


----------



## nat4900

Well, the delusional ChrissyL baby is certainly occupying a lot of this thread's space with moronic posts......Remember the old adage about wrestling with pigs.........well you know the rest.......
Let the dingbat wallow in his/her own bile.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would Shiite Iran support a Sunni jihadist organization like ISIS? Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border.
> 
> The notion that Shiite Iran would help Sunni jihadists was not farfetched, even if it seemed to defy the conventional wisdom in Western capitals.
> 
> It is unreasonable to expect Iran to fight ISIS. If Iran does so, it would be turning against a movement that has been a useful surrogate for Tehran’s interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those are opinions not facts:
> 
> This makes no sense whatsoever:  "Iran wants to be certain that a strong Iraqi state does not emerge again along its western border."
> 
> It's fine with a strong Shiite majority state and never in a billion years would Iran want Northern and Western Iraq crawling with Shiitte murdering Sunni terrorists that would threaten to take over Baghdad and keep coming to Tehran.
> 
> How dumb does this guy think the rest of the world is?
Click to expand...


This totally benefits them.  Once Iraq is defeated, that leaves the doors open for Iran to step in.  Obviously you haven't been reading the links I've posted for you.  You just want to remain with your head buried in the sand.  I just posted one that perfectly outlines the Iran plan.  You see, they are looking at the bigger picture here.


----------



## ChrisL

And you should all read this.  If you still think we should abide by a nuclear Iran, then you are just beyond any kind of reasoning ability.  

The Iranian Nuclear Threat Why it Matters

*HOW DO WE KNOW IRAN IS DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS?*
Iran's nuclear program is clearly intended to develop a nuclear weapons capability. For eighteen years, it was kept secret, even though international assistance would have been available to a civilian program. In 2002, Iran's covert program was exposed. Since then, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has repeatedly said that it cannot consider Iran's nuclear program as entirely civilian. On November 8, 2011 it released a report stating there is "credible" evidence that "Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device." Each report since then has underscored Iran’s continuing refusal to address the IAEA’s evidence and its refusal to allow IAEA inspectors into the Parchin complex, where evidence shows “strong indicators of possible nuclear weapon development.”

In 2009, Western intelligence agencies discovered, and Iran admitted to, another secret facility that is designed for approximately 3,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium. President Obama commented that the "configuration" of the Fordow facility is "not consistent with a peaceful nuclear program." Three thousand centrifuges are sufficient for producing quantities of highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, but not for fuel for nuclear power plants.

*WHAT EVIDENCE DOES THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY (IAEA) HAVE?*
On November 8, 2011, the IAEA released a comprehensive and damning report on Iran's nuclear program. The report is based on intelligence received from more than 10 different countries, interviews with foreign scientists who helped Iran develop their program, and the IAEA's own investigations and analyses.

In unambiguous terms, the report stated that Iran is engaged in "activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device." These activities include:


Research on uranium cores and detonators for nuclear weapons
Acquiring nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine supply network
Developing an indigenous nuclear weapons design and testing of the components
Computer modeling of nuclear explosions and logistics for nuclear testing
Engineering studies to adapt missiles for nuclear warheads
The IAEA's May 2013 report noted that Iran had a 182kg stockpile of 20% enriched uranium and 6,357kg of 5% enriched uranium, enough to produce weapons-grade uranium for seven nuclear bombs using the same enrichment technology. Iran continues to install centrifuges at the deep underground, heavily defended Fordow installation, increasing its capability to quickly enrich to weapons-grade.

*Terrorism and Extremism*
Iran's regime is a source of extremism and destabilization in the region and around the globe. Iran is generally considered to be the leading state sponsor of terrorism, providing financial support and training for organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and others, and is believed to be behind many Shiite insurgents in Iraq. Iran is responsible for the bombings of the Israeli Embassy (1992) and the Jewish community center (1994) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, which killed over 200 people and wounded hundreds more. Its leaders have repeatedly called for Israel's demise and have propagated base anti-Semitism, including the denial of the Holocaust. The Iranian government is also backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his government’s brutal campaign against rebel forces and Syrian citizens. Iran supplies the Assad regime with financial and military support, and its proxy Hezbollah recently began fighting alongside the Syrian government.

*Human Rights Violations*
The Iranian regime denies basic freedoms to Iran's citizens, including freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press. The rights of women, workers, homosexuals, juveniles, religious and ethnic minorities, and political opposition are brutally suppressed. The United States and Sweden have proposed that the UN Human Rights Council appoint a Special Rapporteur to investigate and report on human rights violations in Iran.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10959137 





ChrisL said:


> No, I don't think you read the entire poll. It clearly states that Americans are against a nuclear Iran.



I've shown you all the polls I'm citing. Will you show which specific poll you are citing?

Here's your link just copy the polling firm and date. 
Iran


Posting a link to a wall of words is not really telling us what you are actually talking about.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Well, the delusional ChrissyL baby is certainly occupying a lot of this thread's space with moronic posts......Remember the old adage about wrestling with pigs.........well you know the rest.......
> Let the dingbat wallow in his/her own bile.



Moronic?  I don't think so.  All of my posts have been thoughtful and backed with facts and links.  What have you contributed to this thread?  Shall I go gather all of your posts on the matter?  Then we will see who is the "dingbat," "pig" and the "moron" here.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10959137
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think you read the entire poll. It clearly states that Americans are against a nuclear Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown you all the polls I'm citing. Will you show which specific poll you are citing?
> 
> Here's your link just copy the polling firm and date.
> Iran
> 
> 
> Posting a link to a wall of words is not really telling us what you are actually talking about.
Click to expand...


I did post a link and the data.  ???  It is a Gallup poll.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another poll . . .
> 
> 
> 
> *Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat*
> 
> Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about how to have them not get a nuke.   Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a liberal could make sense of such a statement.  Basically you are saying that by okaying a nuclear Iran that is going to prevent them from developing nukes.     I'll have to give you a "funny" for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is okaying a nuclear Iran?  Nobody is doing that.  How can someone who knows so little post so much?  It's embarassing.
Click to expand...


Who is okaying it?  Anyone who agrees with this deal.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10959137
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think you read the entire poll. It clearly states that Americans are against a nuclear Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown you all the polls I'm citing. Will you show which specific poll you are citing?
> 
> Here's your link just copy the polling firm and date.
> Iran
> 
> 
> Posting a link to a wall of words is not really telling us what you are actually talking about.
Click to expand...


Oh, that was the other poll, and yes, the source from the poll is in the link.  Obviously you aren't reading the links.  That's your problem, not mine.  

*NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll* conducted by Hart Research Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R). March 1-5, 2015. N=approx. 500 adults nationwide.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW 

I think you owe me an apology since I most certainly did post the links to the polls and all of the information about the polls is included in those links.   

Also, by your screen name, we can all tell that you are a partisan.  Why pretend that you have the country's best interests at heart, when you obviously do not?  Your only concern is that people like Obama.  Lol.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another poll . . .
> 
> 
> 
> *Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat*
> 
> Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about how to have them not get a nuke.   Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a liberal could make sense of such a statement.  Basically you are saying that by okaying a nuclear Iran that is going to prevent them from developing nukes.     I'll have to give you a "funny" for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is okaying a nuclear Iran?  Nobody is doing that.  How can someone who knows so little post so much?  It's embarassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is okaying it?  Anyone who agrees with this deal.
Click to expand...


Then you have no understanding of the deal.  You fail.


----------



## ChrisL

Also, don't get angry with me that most of you liberals couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.  It's not my fault that you suck.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another poll . . .
> 
> 
> 
> *Iran's Development of Nuclear Weapons Seen as Critical Threat*
> 
> Nonetheless, the vast majority of Americans (77%) say the development of nuclear weapons by Iran is a "critical threat," perhaps underscoring the importance of these talks. Another 16% say the threat is important, but not critical. Since 2013, a preponderance of U.S. adults have identified possible Iranian nuclear weapons as a critical threat and the issue has ranked highly compared with other possible threats facing the U.S.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Nuclear Talks Progress 11 in U.S. See Iran Favorably
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's about how to have them not get a nuke.   Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only a liberal could make sense of such a statement.  Basically you are saying that by okaying a nuclear Iran that is going to prevent them from developing nukes.     I'll have to give you a "funny" for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is okaying a nuclear Iran?  Nobody is doing that.  How can someone who knows so little post so much?  It's embarassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is okaying it?  Anyone who agrees with this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have no understanding of the deal.  You fail.
Click to expand...


I do understand it, and it is a terrible idea.  It is a known fact that Iran plays fast and loose with rules.  LOL.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW
> 
> I think you owe me an apology since I most certainly did post the links to the polls and all of the information about the polls is included in those links.
> 
> Also, by your screen name, we can all tell that you are a partisan.  Why pretend that you have the country's best interests at heart, when you obviously do not?  Your only concern is that people like Obama.  Lol.



You obviously are partisan and have Israels best interests at heart.


----------



## ChrisL

Iran has been trying to obtain nukes for decades now, and that idiot Obama is giving them the okay.  Now, let's watch the ME implode.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW
> 
> I think you owe me an apology since I most certainly did post the links to the polls and all of the information about the polls is included in those links.
> 
> Also, by your screen name, we can all tell that you are a partisan.  Why pretend that you have the country's best interests at heart, when you obviously do not?  Your only concern is that people like Obama.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously are partisan and have Israels best interests at heart.
Click to expand...


yes, I am very concerned with the security of the American people, the Israeli people, as well as the rest of the people in the world.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's about how to have them not get a nuke.   Most think an agreement is the best way to keep that from happening.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal could make sense of such a statement.  Basically you are saying that by okaying a nuclear Iran that is going to prevent them from developing nukes.     I'll have to give you a "funny" for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is okaying a nuclear Iran?  Nobody is doing that.  How can someone who knows so little post so much?  It's embarassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is okaying it?  Anyone who agrees with this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have no understanding of the deal.  You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand it, and it is a terrible idea.  It is a known fact that Iran plays fast and loose with rules.  LOL.
Click to expand...


Link?

And you want to go to war to stop them.  What do polls say about that idea?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

New York Magazine
*Republicans Feeling Heat Over Iran Letter Express Regrets*
Bloomberg-3 hours ago
(Bloomberg) -- At least a few of the Republican senators feeling the backlash from signing an open _letter_ to _Iran's_ leaders are expressing some ...


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW
> 
> I think you owe me an apology since I most certainly did post the links to the polls and all of the information about the polls is included in those links.
> 
> Also, by your screen name, we can all tell that you are a partisan.  Why pretend that you have the country's best interests at heart, when you obviously do not?  Your only concern is that people like Obama.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously are partisan and have Israels best interests at heart.
Click to expand...


This is also a typical dummy lib response.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a liberal could make sense of such a statement.  Basically you are saying that by okaying a nuclear Iran that is going to prevent them from developing nukes.     I'll have to give you a "funny" for that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is okaying a nuclear Iran?  Nobody is doing that.  How can someone who knows so little post so much?  It's embarassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is okaying it?  Anyone who agrees with this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have no understanding of the deal.  You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand it, and it is a terrible idea.  It is a known fact that Iran plays fast and loose with rules.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> And you want to go to war to stop them.  What do polls say about that idea?
Click to expand...


I said that we need to get everyone on board with sanctions.  Sanctions have worked and do work when they are properly applied.  Now, we can threaten those hold-out countries into sanctioning Iran with no more aid money.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Iran has been trying to obtain nukes for decades now, and that idiot Obama is giving them the okay.  Now, let's watch the ME implode.



Sounds like what we were told about iraq.  We don't need another mistake like that.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is okaying a nuclear Iran?  Nobody is doing that.  How can someone who knows so little post so much?  It's embarassing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is okaying it?  Anyone who agrees with this deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you have no understanding of the deal.  You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand it, and it is a terrible idea.  It is a known fact that Iran plays fast and loose with rules.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> And you want to go to war to stop them.  What do polls say about that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that we need to get everyone on board with sanctions.  Sanctions have worked and do work when they are properly applied.  Now, we can threaten those hold-out countries into sanctioning Iran with no more aid money.
Click to expand...


Where have they ever worked?  North Korea?  You must be joking.


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> New York Magazine
> *Republicans Feeling Heat Over Iran Letter Express Regrets*
> Bloomberg-3 hours ago
> (Bloomberg) -- At least a few of the Republican senators feeling the backlash from signing an open _letter_ to _Iran's_ leaders are expressing some ...



Well, they shouldn't give in to the pressure.  They are doing the RIGHT thing for everyone.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is okaying it?  Anyone who agrees with this deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have no understanding of the deal.  You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand it, and it is a terrible idea.  It is a known fact that Iran plays fast and loose with rules.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> And you want to go to war to stop them.  What do polls say about that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that we need to get everyone on board with sanctions.  Sanctions have worked and do work when they are properly applied.  Now, we can threaten those hold-out countries into sanctioning Iran with no more aid money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have they ever worked?  North Korea?  You must be joking.
Click to expand...


They've worked with Iran in the past.  Iran has come to the table for negotiations specifically to end sanctions.  Learn some history!!!


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has been trying to obtain nukes for decades now, and that idiot Obama is giving them the okay.  Now, let's watch the ME implode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like what we were told about iraq.  We don't need another mistake like that.
Click to expand...


So . . . your answer is?  Make deals with Iran to get nuclear power?  That is your smart idea, huh?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have no understanding of the deal.  You fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do understand it, and it is a terrible idea.  It is a known fact that Iran plays fast and loose with rules.  LOL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> And you want to go to war to stop them.  What do polls say about that idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said that we need to get everyone on board with sanctions.  Sanctions have worked and do work when they are properly applied.  Now, we can threaten those hold-out countries into sanctioning Iran with no more aid money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where have they ever worked?  North Korea?  You must be joking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They've worked with Iran in the past.  Iran has come to the table for negotiations specifically to end sanctions.  Learn some history!!!
Click to expand...


Link how they have ever worked.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*The Republican Iran Letter Is the Perfect Neoconservative Fiasco*


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has been trying to obtain nukes for decades now, and that idiot Obama is giving them the okay.  Now, let's watch the ME implode.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like what we were told about iraq.  We don't need another mistake like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So . . . your answer is?  Make deals with Iran to get nuclear power?  That is your smart idea, huh?
Click to expand...


Several countries are behind that idea.  War is not an option and sanctions make them want it more.


----------



## kiwiman127

I have quite a few reservations on both sides of this issue and as a pragmatic moderate I don't have an ideology right/left who dictates my thinking.
My questions are, what's up with Mossad saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?  Somebody isn't being honest,,who?
Why are the Iranian hardliners against the negotiations if the outcome if it's a cave-in to Iran by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia?
What happens if the Iranian hardliners assume power in Iran?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*POLITICO Caucus: Iran-letter backlash spreads to early states*

'Policywise, the deal Obama is trying to cut is a bad one. Politically speaking, however, the letter has been a disaster.'

By James Hohmann

3/13/15 6:37 AM EDT


Read more: POLITICO Caucus Iran-letter backlash spreads to early states - James Hohmann - POLITICO


----------



## ChrisL

The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?


----------



## nat4900

[QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 10959490, member: 50165
]

They've worked with Iran in the past.  Iran has come to the table for negotiations specifically to end sanctions.  Learn some history!!![/QUOTE]


So, my dear friends, lets follow the "logic" of the dingbat, *ChrissyL*.....

Sanctions, states the nitwit, have made Iran come to the table for negotiations......and what those the moron propose???? Well, we should leave the table of negotiations...Yep, why didn't we think of that?????

Priceless.....LOL


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?



Nuclear power?


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *POLITICO Caucus: Iran-letter backlash spreads to early states*
> 
> 'Policywise, the deal Obama is trying to cut is a bad one. Politically speaking, however, the letter has been a disaster.'
> 
> By James Hohmann
> 
> 3/13/15 6:37 AM EDT
> 
> 
> Read more: POLITICO Caucus Iran-letter backlash spreads to early states - James Hohmann - POLITICO



Perhaps for the more politically correct amongst us, the letter was not a good idea, but I personally have no problem with it.  I think those senators realize that bringing their issues to Obama is useless, and so they did what they thought was necessary.  I agree with them completely.  Obama is not going to listen to them.  He is going to do just what he wants to do, even though he is clueless obviously.  

However, a letter is certainly not as damaging as Obama's little deal here.  This is going to have a major effect on the entire world.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power?
Click to expand...


Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> *POLITICO Caucus: Iran-letter backlash spreads to early states*
> 
> 'Policywise, the deal Obama is trying to cut is a bad one. Politically speaking, however, the letter has been a disaster.'
> 
> By James Hohmann
> 
> 3/13/15 6:37 AM EDT
> 
> 
> Read more: POLITICO Caucus Iran-letter backlash spreads to early states - James Hohmann - POLITICO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps for the more politically correct amongst us, the letter was not a good idea, but I personally have no problem with it.  I think those senators realize that bringing their issues to Obama is useless, and so they did what they thought was necessary.  I agree with them completely.  Obama is not going to listen to them.  He is going to do just what he wants to do, even though he is clueless obviously.
> 
> However, a letter is certainly not as damaging as Obama's little deal here.  This is going to have a major effect on the entire world.
Click to expand...


Luckily you are in a minority with those ideas.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 10959490, member: 50165
> ]
> 
> They've worked with Iran in the past.  Iran has come to the table for negotiations specifically to end sanctions.  Learn some history!!!




So, my dear friends, lets follow the "logic" of the dingbat, *ChrissyL*.....

Sanctions, states the nitwit, have made Iran come to the table for negotiations......and what those the moron propose???? Well, we should leave the table of negotiations...Yep, why didn't we think of that?????

Priceless.....LOL[/QUOTE]

The only reason why they left the table was because of the end of the sanctions, dumbass.

Also, learn to use the computer and the quote function.  If you can't even figure that out, you have no business being here discussing anything important.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
Click to expand...


Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 10959490, member: 50165
> ]
> 
> They've worked with Iran in the past.  Iran has come to the table for negotiations specifically to end sanctions.  Learn some history!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, my dear friends, lets follow the "logic" of the dingbat, *ChrissyL*.....
> 
> Sanctions, states the nitwit, have made Iran come to the table for negotiations......and what those the moron propose???? Well, we should leave the table of negotiations...Yep, why didn't we think of that?????
> 
> Priceless.....LOL
Click to expand...


The only reason why they left the table was because of the end of the sanctions, dumbass.

Also, learn to use the computer and the quote function.  If you can't even figure that out, you have no business being here discussing anything important.[/QUOTE]

Waiting for link showing how sanctions have worked.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
Click to expand...


What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 10959490, member: 50165
> ]
> 
> They've worked with Iran in the past.  Iran has come to the table for negotiations specifically to end sanctions.  Learn some history!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, my dear friends, lets follow the "logic" of the dingbat, *ChrissyL*.....
> 
> Sanctions, states the nitwit, have made Iran come to the table for negotiations......and what those the moron propose???? Well, we should leave the table of negotiations...Yep, why didn't we think of that?????
> 
> Priceless.....LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only reason why they left the table was because of the end of the sanctions, dumbass.
> 
> Also, learn to use the computer and the quote function.  If you can't even figure that out, you have no business being here discussing anything important.
Click to expand...


Waiting for link showing how sanctions have worked.[/QUOTE]

It was already mentioned many times in several of the links I've provided.  Did you read them?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 

You really need to think about changing your screen name to Pinky.  Lol.  

Iran sanctions They work so keep them


----------



## MisterBeale

ChrisL said:


> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?



You read and view to much war propaganda from western media sources.  That is all we can ascertain for sure from your post.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*Tom Cotton the Dennis Rodman of the Ayatollahs ...*

*




*


----------



## ChrisL

MisterBeale said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You read and view to much war propaganda from western media sources.  That is all we can ascertain for sure from your post.
Click to expand...


I've provided all kinds of sources.  All of my claims are linked to sources.  Now, what do you have to add to the topic?


----------



## ChrisL

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *Tom Cotton the Dennis Rodman of the Ayatollahs ...*



Yes, you keep disparaging candidates.  That is the only thing you're good at.    No critical thinking skills required there.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
Click to expand...


Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
Click to expand...


And the materials needed for nuclear power can easily be used for weapons, moron.


----------



## nat4900

kiwiman127 said:


> I have quite a few reservations on both sides of this issue and as a pragmatic moderate I don't have an ideology right/left who dictates my thinking.
> My questions are, what's up with Mossad saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?  Somebody isn't being honest,,who?
> Why are the Iranian hardliners against the negotiations if the outcome if it's a cave-in to Iran by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia?
> What happens if the Iranian hardliners assume power in Iran?




Ahhhha, finally some decent questions that could lead to SANE discourse...My take is that Bibi and company in Israel are all-out FEAR-MONGERING as the most effective way to remain in power.

Conversely, the Iranian hardliners are also doing the same claiming that it may not be fair in the region's balance of power for Israel to be the only nation with over 200 nukes.

Hardliners have long been in power in Iran.....and only recently has some measure of more moderate Iranians wrested some political power...After all, Iran had been surrounded by US and coalition troops (Iraq, Afghanistan and even some of our troops in Turkey)...Once we vacated those neighboring countries, more moderate voices began being heard in Persia......

Those 47 senators' letter have almost squashed the Iranian moderation toward trusting the west.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line here is that Iran lies and spreads propaganda. They are abusive to their own people and are a known source for some of the worst terror cells in the ME.  They harbor, train and financially support them.  They are a people who are religious fanatics and believe that the end of the world must occur in order for their 12th Imam to arrive, they hate America and Israel and anyone else who disagrees with their extremist views . . . now who thinks them having nuclear power is a GOOD idea?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
Click to expand...


Look, you didn't even know that the atomic bomb was a nuclear weapon.    You are out of your league here and should probably bow out of the conversation.  As usual, you come across as a dummy.  Where you ever got the idea to use the word "brain" for your screen name, I don't know, but that's a lie.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have quite a few reservations on both sides of this issue and as a pragmatic moderate I don't have an ideology right/left who dictates my thinking.
> My questions are, what's up with Mossad saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?  Somebody isn't being honest,,who?
> Why are the Iranian hardliners against the negotiations if the outcome if it's a cave-in to Iran by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia?
> What happens if the Iranian hardliners assume power in Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhha, finally some decent questions that could lead to SANE discourse...My take is that Bibi and company in Israel are all-out FEAR-MONGERING as the most effective way to remain in power.
> 
> Conversely, the Iranian hardliners are also doing the same claiming that it may not be fair in the region's balance of power for Israel to be the only nation with over 200 nukes.
> 
> Hardliners have long been in power in Iran.....and only recently has some measure of more moderate Iranians wrested some political power...After all, Iran had been surrounded by US and coalition troops (Iraq, Afghanistan and even some of our troops in Turkey)...Once we vacated those neighboring countries, more moderate voices began being heard in Persia......
> 
> Those 47 senators' letter have almost squashed the Iranian moderation toward trusting the west.
Click to expand...


Wrong, in the past few years, Iran has become even more extreme and hard line.


----------



## ChrisL

There is no such thing as a "moderate" Iranian.  All of the elections are rigged, and the mullahs make the final decisions.  They like the hardliners because hardliners are the governing body of Iran.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357
> 
> You really need to think about changing your screen name to Pinky.  Lol.
> 
> Iran sanctions They work so keep them



Your link is old and you still say Iran is a huge threat.  Looks like the opinion in your link is wrong.  How many more years you give for sanctions to work?  Really worked with that Castro.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have quite a few reservations on both sides of this issue and as a pragmatic moderate I don't have an ideology right/left who dictates my thinking.
> My questions are, what's up with Mossad saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?  Somebody isn't being honest,,who?
> Why are the Iranian hardliners against the negotiations if the outcome if it's a cave-in to Iran by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia?
> What happens if the Iranian hardliners assume power in Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhha, finally some decent questions that could lead to SANE discourse...My take is that Bibi and company in Israel are all-out FEAR-MONGERING as the most effective way to remain in power.
> 
> Conversely, the Iranian hardliners are also doing the same claiming that it may not be fair in the region's balance of power for Israel to be the only nation with over 200 nukes.
> 
> Hardliners have long been in power in Iran.....and only recently has some measure of more moderate Iranians wrested some political power...After all, Iran had been surrounded by US and coalition troops (Iraq, Afghanistan and even some of our troops in Turkey)...Once we vacated those neighboring countries, more moderate voices began being heard in Persia......
> 
> Those 47 senators' letter have almost squashed the Iranian moderation toward trusting the west.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, in the past few years, Iran has become even more extreme and hard line.
Click to expand...


That is counter to your link that sanctions are working.  You need to get your story straight.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> You really need to think about changing your screen name to Pinky.  Lol.
> 
> Iran sanctions They work so keep them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is old and you still say Iran is a huge threat.  Looks like the opinion in your link is wrong.  How many more years you give for sanctions to work?  Really worked with that Castro.
Click to expand...


Um, no, dummy.  The link is from 2013.  That is not old.  The biggest problem is that Russia and China ignore the sanctions.  I've already given a solution for that little problem.  From the link . . . 

"Another key effect of sanctions has been the wrench it has thrown into the regime's usual business strategies. Significantly, hundreds of international corporations have fled Iran in recent years due to sanctions and pressure, and dozens of countries have declared themselves off-limits to business involving Iran or its sinking currency. The partners the regime has relied on for decades are dwindling, and Khamenei is finding himself increasingly out of options."


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have quite a few reservations on both sides of this issue and as a pragmatic moderate I don't have an ideology right/left who dictates my thinking.
> My questions are, what's up with Mossad saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?  Somebody isn't being honest,,who?
> Why are the Iranian hardliners against the negotiations if the outcome if it's a cave-in to Iran by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia?
> What happens if the Iranian hardliners assume power in Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhha, finally some decent questions that could lead to SANE discourse...My take is that Bibi and company in Israel are all-out FEAR-MONGERING as the most effective way to remain in power.
> 
> Conversely, the Iranian hardliners are also doing the same claiming that it may not be fair in the region's balance of power for Israel to be the only nation with over 200 nukes.
> 
> Hardliners have long been in power in Iran.....and only recently has some measure of more moderate Iranians wrested some political power...After all, Iran had been surrounded by US and coalition troops (Iraq, Afghanistan and even some of our troops in Turkey)...Once we vacated those neighboring countries, more moderate voices began being heard in Persia......
> 
> Those 47 senators' letter have almost squashed the Iranian moderation toward trusting the west.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, in the past few years, Iran has become even more extreme and hard line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is counter to your link that sanctions are working.  You need to get your story straight.
Click to expand...


That's because they are emboldened by backing of Russia and China, as everyone knows.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the materials needed for nuclear power can easily be used for weapons, moron.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## bendog

nat4900 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have quite a few reservations on both sides of this issue and as a pragmatic moderate I don't have an ideology right/left who dictates my thinking.
> My questions are, what's up with Mossad saying that Iran has no nuclear weapons program?  Somebody isn't being honest,,who?
> Why are the Iranian hardliners against the negotiations if the outcome if it's a cave-in to Iran by the US, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia?
> What happens if the Iranian hardliners assume power in Iran?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhha, finally some decent questions that could lead to SANE discourse...My take is that Bibi and company in Israel are all-out FEAR-MONGERING as the most effective way to remain in power.
> 
> Conversely, the Iranian hardliners are also doing the same claiming that it may not be fair in the region's balance of power for Israel to be the only nation with over 200 nukes.
> 
> Hardliners have long been in power in Iran.....and only recently has some measure of more moderate Iranians wrested some political power...After all, Iran had been surrounded by US and coalition troops (Iraq, Afghanistan and even some of our troops in Turkey)...Once we vacated those neighboring countries, more moderate voices began being heard in Persia......
> 
> Those 47 senators' letter have almost squashed the Iranian moderation toward trusting the west.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree.  Ayatollah Khamenei probably doesn't want a verifiable agreement, and the Republican Guard doesn't want it.  But, they need to have sanctions lifted.  I do think the 47 Cottonheads have hurt our bargaining power to get a better deal.  When Khamenei said "the US always waits till the last minute to demand more and doesn't want a deal," I think he was honestly saying how he perceived it.  It's now harder to get better verification requirements.  jmo


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you didn't even know that the atomic bomb was a nuclear weapon.    You are out of your league here and should probably bow out of the conversation.  As usual, you come across as a dummy.  Where you ever got the idea to use the word "brain" for your screen name, I don't know, but that's a lie.  Lol.
Click to expand...


You don't know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a bomb.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the materials needed for nuclear power can easily be used for weapons, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


You cannot be that dumb.  No, I'm not providing you with any more links.  You are useless waste of my time.  You can go on believing whatever, but the more educated people who know would agree with me.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Do you know what that means or is that something else I'm going to have to try to explain to you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you didn't even know that the atomic bomb was a nuclear weapon.    You are out of your league here and should probably bow out of the conversation.  As usual, you come across as a dummy.  Where you ever got the idea to use the word "brain" for your screen name, I don't know, but that's a lie.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a bomb.
Click to expand...


Sure I do.  You, OTOH, did not know that an atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon.  Lol.  So stupid.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> You really need to think about changing your screen name to Pinky.  Lol.
> 
> Iran sanctions They work so keep them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is old and you still say Iran is a huge threat.  Looks like the opinion in your link is wrong.  How many more years you give for sanctions to work?  Really worked with that Castro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, dummy.  The link is from 2013.  That is not old.  The biggest problem is that Russia and China ignore the sanctions.  I've already given a solution for that little problem.  From the link . . .
> 
> "Another key effect of sanctions has been the wrench it has thrown into the regime's usual business strategies. Significantly, hundreds of international corporations have fled Iran in recent years due to sanctions and pressure, and dozens of countries have declared themselves off-limits to business involving Iran or its sinking currency. The partners the regime has relied on for decades are dwindling, and Khamenei is finding himself increasingly out of options."
Click to expand...


Well the link says they are moving to be moderate and that is why the sanctions are working.  All your claims are counter to your own link.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you didn't even know that the atomic bomb was a nuclear weapon.    You are out of your league here and should probably bow out of the conversation.  As usual, you come across as a dummy.  Where you ever got the idea to use the word "brain" for your screen name, I don't know, but that's a lie.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  You, OTOH, did not know that an atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon.  Lol.  So stupid.
Click to expand...


You said nuclear power.  That is not a weapon by any definition.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody has ever attacked with nuclear power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the materials needed for nuclear power can easily be used for weapons, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be that dumb.  No, I'm not providing you with any more links.  You are useless waste of my time.  You can go on believing whatever, but the more educated people who know would agree with me.
Click to expand...


Well your links don't even agree with you.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the materials needed for nuclear power can easily be used for weapons, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cannot be that dumb.  No, I'm not providing you with any more links.  You are useless waste of my time.  You can go on believing whatever, but the more educated people who know would agree with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well your links don't even agree with you.
Click to expand...


Please point out where they don't agree with me.  Oh, that's right, you can't because you are making shit up, as usual.  This is the same thing we go through on the gun threads, and you get the crap kicked out of you there too.    Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> You really need to think about changing your screen name to Pinky.  Lol.
> 
> Iran sanctions They work so keep them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is old and you still say Iran is a huge threat.  Looks like the opinion in your link is wrong.  How many more years you give for sanctions to work?  Really worked with that Castro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, dummy.  The link is from 2013.  That is not old.  The biggest problem is that Russia and China ignore the sanctions.  I've already given a solution for that little problem.  From the link . . .
> 
> "Another key effect of sanctions has been the wrench it has thrown into the regime's usual business strategies. Significantly, hundreds of international corporations have fled Iran in recent years due to sanctions and pressure, and dozens of countries have declared themselves off-limits to business involving Iran or its sinking currency. The partners the regime has relied on for decades are dwindling, and Khamenei is finding himself increasingly out of options."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the link says they are moving to be moderate and that is why the sanctions are working.  All your claims are counter to your own link.
Click to expand...


Sanctions having an effect has nothing to do with how moderate they are.  They are FORCED to come to the table and deal when the sanctions are in effect.  It is the same idea as starving them out of the castle.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think the atom bomb was, moron?  My God, you people have no business being in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, you didn't even know that the atomic bomb was a nuclear weapon.    You are out of your league here and should probably bow out of the conversation.  As usual, you come across as a dummy.  Where you ever got the idea to use the word "brain" for your screen name, I don't know, but that's a lie.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  You, OTOH, did not know that an atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon.  Lol.  So stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said nuclear power.  That is not a weapon by any definition.
Click to expand...


Obviously, you do not understand this topic.  It is too complicated for you.    Now, run along little dummy.


----------



## ChrisL

Let's see if brainless can show where my links disagree with my claims.    This ought to be amusing.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nuclear power is used for energy, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you didn't even know that the atomic bomb was a nuclear weapon.    You are out of your league here and should probably bow out of the conversation.  As usual, you come across as a dummy.  Where you ever got the idea to use the word "brain" for your screen name, I don't know, but that's a lie.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  You, OTOH, did not know that an atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon.  Lol.  So stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said nuclear power.  That is not a weapon by any definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, you do not understand this topic.  It is too complicated for you.    Now, run along little dummy.
Click to expand...

How Nuclear Power Works - HowStuffWorks


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you didn't even know that the atomic bomb was a nuclear weapon.    You are out of your league here and should probably bow out of the conversation.  As usual, you come across as a dummy.  Where you ever got the idea to use the word "brain" for your screen name, I don't know, but that's a lie.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  You, OTOH, did not know that an atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon.  Lol.  So stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said nuclear power.  That is not a weapon by any definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, you do not understand this topic.  It is too complicated for you.    Now, run along little dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How Nuclear Power Works - HowStuffWorks
Click to expand...


What does this have to do with anything we were discussing?  This also does nothing to prove you know anything about what you are talking about.  In fact, all of your prior one line comments with no substance prove that you do not.

How nuclear power works was not what we were discussing, but that the same fission and fusion principals are at play with a nuclear weapon.  Do you not understand that simple concept?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, you didn't even know that the atomic bomb was a nuclear weapon.    You are out of your league here and should probably bow out of the conversation.  As usual, you come across as a dummy.  Where you ever got the idea to use the word "brain" for your screen name, I don't know, but that's a lie.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  You, OTOH, did not know that an atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon.  Lol.  So stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said nuclear power.  That is not a weapon by any definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, you do not understand this topic.  It is too complicated for you.    Now, run along little dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How Nuclear Power Works - HowStuffWorks
Click to expand...


Converting a civilian enrichment plant into a nuclear weapons material facility Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Iran’s nuclear program—specifically its ongoing uranium enrichment—has long been the subject of much debate. Iran insists its enrichment is peaceful, but the international community worries that Iran could be seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. But exactly how can a civilian enrichment plant be turned into one that produces nuclear weapons material?

There are two paths to a bomb: using either uranium or plutonium. For either path, obtaining the material is considered one of the greatest hurdles to overcome.

Uranium has two isotopes—235 and 238. Uranium 235 powers both nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, but it is less than 1 percent of naturally occurring uranium. The concentration of uranium 235 needs to be increased to about 5 percent (low-enriched uranium) for nuclear reactor fuel and to about 90 percent (highly enriched uranium) for nuclear bombs. This process is called enrichment.

Today, enrichment is done using high-speed gas centrifuges. Many centrifuges are interconnected in stages to form cascades. The pattern or shape of the cascade is determined by the required concentration of the final product and the properties of individual centrifuges.

Exactly the same machines that produce nuclear fuel can produce weapons material. That is why uranium enrichment technology is inherently dual-use. Any civilian enrichment facility can be used to produce nuclear weapons material.

Because of this danger, all nuclear material in civilian enrichment facilities owned by non-nuclear weapons states is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Inspectors monitor sites to ensure that a nation uses the facility as declared and that no nuclear material is secretly diverted.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't know the difference between a nuclear power plant and a bomb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  You, OTOH, did not know that an atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon.  Lol.  So stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said nuclear power.  That is not a weapon by any definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, you do not understand this topic.  It is too complicated for you.    Now, run along little dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How Nuclear Power Works - HowStuffWorks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Converting a civilian enrichment plant into a nuclear weapons material facility Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
> 
> Iran’s nuclear program—specifically its ongoing uranium enrichment—has long been the subject of much debate. Iran insists its enrichment is peaceful, but the international community worries that Iran could be seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. But exactly how can a civilian enrichment plant be turned into one that produces nuclear weapons material?
> 
> There are two paths to a bomb: using either uranium or plutonium. For either path, obtaining the material is considered one of the greatest hurdles to overcome.
> 
> Uranium has two isotopes—235 and 238. Uranium 235 powers both nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, but it is less than 1 percent of naturally occurring uranium. The concentration of uranium 235 needs to be increased to about 5 percent (low-enriched uranium) for nuclear reactor fuel and to about 90 percent (highly enriched uranium) for nuclear bombs. This process is called enrichment.
> 
> Today, enrichment is done using high-speed gas centrifuges. Many centrifuges are interconnected in stages to form cascades. The pattern or shape of the cascade is determined by the required concentration of the final product and the properties of individual centrifuges.
> 
> Exactly the same machines that produce nuclear fuel can produce weapons material. That is why uranium enrichment technology is inherently dual-use. Any civilian enrichment facility can be used to produce nuclear weapons material.
> 
> Because of this danger, all nuclear material in civilian enrichment facilities owned by non-nuclear weapons states is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Inspectors monitor sites to ensure that a nation uses the facility as declared and that no nuclear material is secretly diverted.
Click to expand...


That's why we want a deal so we can have inspectors there.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> You really need to think about changing your screen name to Pinky.  Lol.
> 
> Iran sanctions They work so keep them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is old and you still say Iran is a huge threat.  Looks like the opinion in your link is wrong.  How many more years you give for sanctions to work?  Really worked with that Castro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, dummy.  The link is from 2013.  That is not old.  The biggest problem is that Russia and China ignore the sanctions.  I've already given a solution for that little problem.  From the link . . .
> 
> "Another key effect of sanctions has been the wrench it has thrown into the regime's usual business strategies. Significantly, hundreds of international corporations have fled Iran in recent years due to sanctions and pressure, and dozens of countries have declared themselves off-limits to business involving Iran or its sinking currency. The partners the regime has relied on for decades are dwindling, and Khamenei is finding himself increasingly out of options."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the link says they are moving to be moderate and that is why the sanctions are working.  All your claims are counter to your own link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions having an effect has nothing to do with how moderate they are.  They are FORCED to come to the table and deal when the sanctions are in effect.  It is the same idea as starving them out of the castle.
Click to expand...


Your link says sanctions are working because they are becoming more moderate.  Which your own arguments say is false.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure I do.  You, OTOH, did not know that an atomic bomb is a nuclear weapon.  Lol.  So stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said nuclear power.  That is not a weapon by any definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously, you do not understand this topic.  It is too complicated for you.    Now, run along little dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How Nuclear Power Works - HowStuffWorks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Converting a civilian enrichment plant into a nuclear weapons material facility Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
> 
> Iran’s nuclear program—specifically its ongoing uranium enrichment—has long been the subject of much debate. Iran insists its enrichment is peaceful, but the international community worries that Iran could be seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. But exactly how can a civilian enrichment plant be turned into one that produces nuclear weapons material?
> 
> There are two paths to a bomb: using either uranium or plutonium. For either path, obtaining the material is considered one of the greatest hurdles to overcome.
> 
> Uranium has two isotopes—235 and 238. Uranium 235 powers both nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, but it is less than 1 percent of naturally occurring uranium. The concentration of uranium 235 needs to be increased to about 5 percent (low-enriched uranium) for nuclear reactor fuel and to about 90 percent (highly enriched uranium) for nuclear bombs. This process is called enrichment.
> 
> Today, enrichment is done using high-speed gas centrifuges. Many centrifuges are interconnected in stages to form cascades. The pattern or shape of the cascade is determined by the required concentration of the final product and the properties of individual centrifuges.
> 
> Exactly the same machines that produce nuclear fuel can produce weapons material. That is why uranium enrichment technology is inherently dual-use. Any civilian enrichment facility can be used to produce nuclear weapons material.
> 
> Because of this danger, all nuclear material in civilian enrichment facilities owned by non-nuclear weapons states is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Inspectors monitor sites to ensure that a nation uses the facility as declared and that no nuclear material is secretly diverted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we want a deal so we can have inspectors there.
Click to expand...


We've had inspectors try to go in there before, and they hide things and lie about things.  You cannot be serious.  Look, why don't you just admit, instead of trying to save face, that this is a terrible idea?  I've killed every one of your arguments.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357
> 
> You really need to think about changing your screen name to Pinky.  Lol.
> 
> Iran sanctions They work so keep them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is old and you still say Iran is a huge threat.  Looks like the opinion in your link is wrong.  How many more years you give for sanctions to work?  Really worked with that Castro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, no, dummy.  The link is from 2013.  That is not old.  The biggest problem is that Russia and China ignore the sanctions.  I've already given a solution for that little problem.  From the link . . .
> 
> "Another key effect of sanctions has been the wrench it has thrown into the regime's usual business strategies. Significantly, hundreds of international corporations have fled Iran in recent years due to sanctions and pressure, and dozens of countries have declared themselves off-limits to business involving Iran or its sinking currency. The partners the regime has relied on for decades are dwindling, and Khamenei is finding himself increasingly out of options."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the link says they are moving to be moderate and that is why the sanctions are working.  All your claims are counter to your own link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions having an effect has nothing to do with how moderate they are.  They are FORCED to come to the table and deal when the sanctions are in effect.  It is the same idea as starving them out of the castle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link says sanctions are working because they are becoming more moderate.  Which your own arguments say is false.
Click to expand...


No it does not say that.  They have not become more moderate.  They come to the table to negotiate because they are "starved out."  This is what sanctions do.  Sanctions do NOT change an ideology.

Just because the person in the link may THINK that is the reason for Iran coming to the table, that is not necessarily the reason.  The reason why I posted the link was to show that sanctions can and do work when carried out correctly and with everyone participating.  The reason WHY is because of desperation on the part of the Iranians.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is old and you still say Iran is a huge threat.  Looks like the opinion in your link is wrong.  How many more years you give for sanctions to work?  Really worked with that Castro.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, dummy.  The link is from 2013.  That is not old.  The biggest problem is that Russia and China ignore the sanctions.  I've already given a solution for that little problem.  From the link . . .
> 
> "Another key effect of sanctions has been the wrench it has thrown into the regime's usual business strategies. Significantly, hundreds of international corporations have fled Iran in recent years due to sanctions and pressure, and dozens of countries have declared themselves off-limits to business involving Iran or its sinking currency. The partners the regime has relied on for decades are dwindling, and Khamenei is finding himself increasingly out of options."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the link says they are moving to be moderate and that is why the sanctions are working.  All your claims are counter to your own link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions having an effect has nothing to do with how moderate they are.  They are FORCED to come to the table and deal when the sanctions are in effect.  It is the same idea as starving them out of the castle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link says sanctions are working because they are becoming more moderate.  Which your own arguments say is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not say that.  They have not become more moderate.  They come to the table to negotiate because they are "starved out."  This is what sanctions do.  Sanctions do NOT change an ideology.
> 
> Just because the person in the link may THINK that is the reason for Iran coming to the table, that is not necessarily the reason.  The reason why I posted the link was to show that sanctions can and do work when carried out correctly and with everyone participating.  The reason WHY is because of desperation on the part of the Iranians.
Click to expand...


Hey that's what your link says.  I still know example where sanctions have worked.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, no, dummy.  The link is from 2013.  That is not old.  The biggest problem is that Russia and China ignore the sanctions.  I've already given a solution for that little problem.  From the link . . .
> 
> "Another key effect of sanctions has been the wrench it has thrown into the regime's usual business strategies. Significantly, hundreds of international corporations have fled Iran in recent years due to sanctions and pressure, and dozens of countries have declared themselves off-limits to business involving Iran or its sinking currency. The partners the regime has relied on for decades are dwindling, and Khamenei is finding himself increasingly out of options."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the link says they are moving to be moderate and that is why the sanctions are working.  All your claims are counter to your own link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions having an effect has nothing to do with how moderate they are.  They are FORCED to come to the table and deal when the sanctions are in effect.  It is the same idea as starving them out of the castle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link says sanctions are working because they are becoming more moderate.  Which your own arguments say is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not say that.  They have not become more moderate.  They come to the table to negotiate because they are "starved out."  This is what sanctions do.  Sanctions do NOT change an ideology.
> 
> Just because the person in the link may THINK that is the reason for Iran coming to the table, that is not necessarily the reason.  The reason why I posted the link was to show that sanctions can and do work when carried out correctly and with everyone participating.  The reason WHY is because of desperation on the part of the Iranians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey that's what your link says.  I still know example where sanctions have worked.
Click to expand...


What?  Your posts don't even make sense.  It's like work having a discussion with you.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said nuclear power.  That is not a weapon by any definition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you do not understand this topic.  It is too complicated for you.    Now, run along little dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How Nuclear Power Works - HowStuffWorks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Converting a civilian enrichment plant into a nuclear weapons material facility Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
> 
> Iran’s nuclear program—specifically its ongoing uranium enrichment—has long been the subject of much debate. Iran insists its enrichment is peaceful, but the international community worries that Iran could be seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. But exactly how can a civilian enrichment plant be turned into one that produces nuclear weapons material?
> 
> There are two paths to a bomb: using either uranium or plutonium. For either path, obtaining the material is considered one of the greatest hurdles to overcome.
> 
> Uranium has two isotopes—235 and 238. Uranium 235 powers both nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, but it is less than 1 percent of naturally occurring uranium. The concentration of uranium 235 needs to be increased to about 5 percent (low-enriched uranium) for nuclear reactor fuel and to about 90 percent (highly enriched uranium) for nuclear bombs. This process is called enrichment.
> 
> Today, enrichment is done using high-speed gas centrifuges. Many centrifuges are interconnected in stages to form cascades. The pattern or shape of the cascade is determined by the required concentration of the final product and the properties of individual centrifuges.
> 
> Exactly the same machines that produce nuclear fuel can produce weapons material. That is why uranium enrichment technology is inherently dual-use. Any civilian enrichment facility can be used to produce nuclear weapons material.
> 
> Because of this danger, all nuclear material in civilian enrichment facilities owned by non-nuclear weapons states is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Inspectors monitor sites to ensure that a nation uses the facility as declared and that no nuclear material is secretly diverted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we want a deal so we can have inspectors there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've had inspectors try to go in there before, and they hide things and lie about things.  You cannot be serious.  Look, why don't you just admit, instead of trying to save face, that this is a terrible idea?  I've killed every one of your arguments.
Click to expand...


You realize they already have nuclear power right?


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, you do not understand this topic.  It is too complicated for you.    Now, run along little dummy.
> 
> 
> 
> How Nuclear Power Works - HowStuffWorks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Converting a civilian enrichment plant into a nuclear weapons material facility Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
> 
> Iran’s nuclear program—specifically its ongoing uranium enrichment—has long been the subject of much debate. Iran insists its enrichment is peaceful, but the international community worries that Iran could be seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. But exactly how can a civilian enrichment plant be turned into one that produces nuclear weapons material?
> 
> There are two paths to a bomb: using either uranium or plutonium. For either path, obtaining the material is considered one of the greatest hurdles to overcome.
> 
> Uranium has two isotopes—235 and 238. Uranium 235 powers both nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, but it is less than 1 percent of naturally occurring uranium. The concentration of uranium 235 needs to be increased to about 5 percent (low-enriched uranium) for nuclear reactor fuel and to about 90 percent (highly enriched uranium) for nuclear bombs. This process is called enrichment.
> 
> Today, enrichment is done using high-speed gas centrifuges. Many centrifuges are interconnected in stages to form cascades. The pattern or shape of the cascade is determined by the required concentration of the final product and the properties of individual centrifuges.
> 
> Exactly the same machines that produce nuclear fuel can produce weapons material. That is why uranium enrichment technology is inherently dual-use. Any civilian enrichment facility can be used to produce nuclear weapons material.
> 
> Because of this danger, all nuclear material in civilian enrichment facilities owned by non-nuclear weapons states is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Inspectors monitor sites to ensure that a nation uses the facility as declared and that no nuclear material is secretly diverted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we want a deal so we can have inspectors there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've had inspectors try to go in there before, and they hide things and lie about things.  You cannot be serious.  Look, why don't you just admit, instead of trying to save face, that this is a terrible idea?  I've killed every one of your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize they already have nuclear power right?
Click to expand...


They have been working on it and lying about it.  I know that much.  You do realize that Iran wants a nuclear weapon, right?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the link says they are moving to be moderate and that is why the sanctions are working.  All your claims are counter to your own link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions having an effect has nothing to do with how moderate they are.  They are FORCED to come to the table and deal when the sanctions are in effect.  It is the same idea as starving them out of the castle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your link says sanctions are working because they are becoming more moderate.  Which your own arguments say is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not say that.  They have not become more moderate.  They come to the table to negotiate because they are "starved out."  This is what sanctions do.  Sanctions do NOT change an ideology.
> 
> Just because the person in the link may THINK that is the reason for Iran coming to the table, that is not necessarily the reason.  The reason why I posted the link was to show that sanctions can and do work when carried out correctly and with everyone participating.  The reason WHY is because of desperation on the part of the Iranians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey that's what your link says.  I still know example where sanctions have worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Your posts don't even make sense.  It's like work having a discussion with you.
Click to expand...


You need to read your own links.


----------



## ChrisL

Some more interesting data from the link I posted above.  

"A nuclear bomb requires only small amounts of uranium—a “significant quantity” of highly enriched uranium, according to the IAEA, is about 25 kilograms, or a little over 55 pounds. (Actual amounts may be smaller and depend on the bomb’s design.) A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor uses 27,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium in a year. This means that an enrichment plant sized to fuel _one_ reactor has the capacity to produce about _20_ bombs per year. That is roughly 300 centrifuges of the kind run by Urenco, the European enrichment consortium, or over 100,000 centrifuges of the kind mostly used by Iran. To produce one bomb a year would require less than 20 Urenco machines or more than 5,000 Iranian ones.

There are several ways to “break out”—that is, produce enough material for one weapon or more—using civilian enrichment facilities. An operator can enrich beyond declared levels at a disclosed facility—covertly or after expelling inspectors—or divert nuclear material to another secret facility.

A cascade that enriches natural uranium to a 5 percent concentration is different from one that enriches to 90 percent only in the number of centrifuges used and how they are interconnected (assuming that centrifuges in both cascades have the same performance). Existing cascades can be re-piped to produce highly enriched uranium, but it also can be produced by “batch recycling,” which is running material several times through a cascade “shaped” for producing low-enriched uranium. Alternatively, an operator could manipulate cascade performance by adjusting the rate at which uranium flows through the centrifuges. Deciding on an option involves a trade-off between efficiency and speed.

The technical requirements for building a nuclear bomb include designing the weapon, producing nuclear material, “weaponizing” that material (converting and machining the material and assembling the bomb), and testing the weapon. Developing a suitable delivery system is also important.

However, the ability to produce weapons material has been widely used as a proxy measure for a country’s nuclear weapons potential. Two main factors determine the time required to produce highly enriched uranium: capacity to enrich uranium (determined by the number of operational centrifuges and the performance of those centrifuges) and the available stockpiles of material (enrichment level and amount). After there is enough feed material for one bomb, the size of the stockpile does not determine the time to a bomb—the enrichment capacity does. Starting with 20 percent uranium cuts by more than half the time to produce a significant quantity of highly enriched uranium compared to starting from 3.5 percent.

Estimates vary greatly because experts adopt different assumptions on the amount of material required for a bomb, the breakout method, and the amount of uranium lost as waste. Some include the time to weaponize the material.

Most estimates on a country’s time to a bomb are typically not predictions of when it will produce a weapon. Iran, for example, has been one to five years away from a bomb since 1985. Rather, they are used to measure the relative imminence of the threat and weigh policy options. They are also used to quantify how much threat reduction we have bought or, colloquially, by how much we have set back the nuclear clock."


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions having an effect has nothing to do with how moderate they are.  They are FORCED to come to the table and deal when the sanctions are in effect.  It is the same idea as starving them out of the castle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link says sanctions are working because they are becoming more moderate.  Which your own arguments say is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not say that.  They have not become more moderate.  They come to the table to negotiate because they are "starved out."  This is what sanctions do.  Sanctions do NOT change an ideology.
> 
> Just because the person in the link may THINK that is the reason for Iran coming to the table, that is not necessarily the reason.  The reason why I posted the link was to show that sanctions can and do work when carried out correctly and with everyone participating.  The reason WHY is because of desperation on the part of the Iranians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey that's what your link says.  I still know example where sanctions have worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Your posts don't even make sense.  It's like work having a discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read your own links.
Click to expand...


I have.  Several times.  I do notice, as do others, that you cannot refute any of my points.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your link says sanctions are working because they are becoming more moderate.  Which your own arguments say is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not say that.  They have not become more moderate.  They come to the table to negotiate because they are "starved out."  This is what sanctions do.  Sanctions do NOT change an ideology.
> 
> Just because the person in the link may THINK that is the reason for Iran coming to the table, that is not necessarily the reason.  The reason why I posted the link was to show that sanctions can and do work when carried out correctly and with everyone participating.  The reason WHY is because of desperation on the part of the Iranians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey that's what your link says.  I still know example where sanctions have worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Your posts don't even make sense.  It's like work having a discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read your own links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.  Several times.  I do notice, as do others, that you cannot refute any of my points.
Click to expand...


Sure and Iran isn't fighting Isis.  Just being reported by everyone.  You haven't come close to making sense.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Some more interesting data from the link I posted above.
> 
> "A nuclear bomb requires only small amounts of uranium—a “significant quantity” of highly enriched uranium, according to the IAEA, is about 25 kilograms, or a little over 55 pounds. (Actual amounts may be smaller and depend on the bomb’s design.) A typical 1,000-megawatt nuclear reactor uses 27,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium in a year. This means that an enrichment plant sized to fuel _one_ reactor has the capacity to produce about _20_ bombs per year. That is roughly 300 centrifuges of the kind run by Urenco, the European enrichment consortium, or over 100,000 centrifuges of the kind mostly used by Iran. To produce one bomb a year would require less than 20 Urenco machines or more than 5,000 Iranian ones.
> 
> There are several ways to “break out”—that is, produce enough material for one weapon or more—using civilian enrichment facilities. An operator can enrich beyond declared levels at a disclosed facility—covertly or after expelling inspectors—or divert nuclear material to another secret facility.
> 
> A cascade that enriches natural uranium to a 5 percent concentration is different from one that enriches to 90 percent only in the number of centrifuges used and how they are interconnected (assuming that centrifuges in both cascades have the same performance). Existing cascades can be re-piped to produce highly enriched uranium, but it also can be produced by “batch recycling,” which is running material several times through a cascade “shaped” for producing low-enriched uranium. Alternatively, an operator could manipulate cascade performance by adjusting the rate at which uranium flows through the centrifuges. Deciding on an option involves a trade-off between efficiency and speed.
> 
> The technical requirements for building a nuclear bomb include designing the weapon, producing nuclear material, “weaponizing” that material (converting and machining the material and assembling the bomb), and testing the weapon. Developing a suitable delivery system is also important.
> 
> However, the ability to produce weapons material has been widely used as a proxy measure for a country’s nuclear weapons potential. Two main factors determine the time required to produce highly enriched uranium: capacity to enrich uranium (determined by the number of operational centrifuges and the performance of those centrifuges) and the available stockpiles of material (enrichment level and amount). After there is enough feed material for one bomb, the size of the stockpile does not determine the time to a bomb—the enrichment capacity does. Starting with 20 percent uranium cuts by more than half the time to produce a significant quantity of highly enriched uranium compared to starting from 3.5 percent.
> 
> Estimates vary greatly because experts adopt different assumptions on the amount of material required for a bomb, the breakout method, and the amount of uranium lost as waste. Some include the time to weaponize the material.
> 
> Most estimates on a country’s time to a bomb are typically not predictions of when it will produce a weapon. Iran, for example, has been one to five years away from a bomb since 1985. Rather, they are used to measure the relative imminence of the threat and weigh policy options. They are also used to quantify how much threat reduction we have bought or, colloquially, by how much we have set back the nuclear clock."



They already have nuclear power...


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not say that.  They have not become more moderate.  They come to the table to negotiate because they are "starved out."  This is what sanctions do.  Sanctions do NOT change an ideology.
> 
> Just because the person in the link may THINK that is the reason for Iran coming to the table, that is not necessarily the reason.  The reason why I posted the link was to show that sanctions can and do work when carried out correctly and with everyone participating.  The reason WHY is because of desperation on the part of the Iranians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey that's what your link says.  I still know example where sanctions have worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?  Your posts don't even make sense.  It's like work having a discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read your own links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.  Several times.  I do notice, as do others, that you cannot refute any of my points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and Iran isn't fighting Isis.  Just being reported by everyone.  You haven't come close to making sense.
Click to expand...


I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.

I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.

As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How Nuclear Power Works - HowStuffWorks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Converting a civilian enrichment plant into a nuclear weapons material facility Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
> 
> Iran’s nuclear program—specifically its ongoing uranium enrichment—has long been the subject of much debate. Iran insists its enrichment is peaceful, but the international community worries that Iran could be seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon. But exactly how can a civilian enrichment plant be turned into one that produces nuclear weapons material?
> 
> There are two paths to a bomb: using either uranium or plutonium. For either path, obtaining the material is considered one of the greatest hurdles to overcome.
> 
> Uranium has two isotopes—235 and 238. Uranium 235 powers both nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, but it is less than 1 percent of naturally occurring uranium. The concentration of uranium 235 needs to be increased to about 5 percent (low-enriched uranium) for nuclear reactor fuel and to about 90 percent (highly enriched uranium) for nuclear bombs. This process is called enrichment.
> 
> Today, enrichment is done using high-speed gas centrifuges. Many centrifuges are interconnected in stages to form cascades. The pattern or shape of the cascade is determined by the required concentration of the final product and the properties of individual centrifuges.
> 
> Exactly the same machines that produce nuclear fuel can produce weapons material. That is why uranium enrichment technology is inherently dual-use. Any civilian enrichment facility can be used to produce nuclear weapons material.
> 
> Because of this danger, all nuclear material in civilian enrichment facilities owned by non-nuclear weapons states is under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards. Inspectors monitor sites to ensure that a nation uses the facility as declared and that no nuclear material is secretly diverted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why we want a deal so we can have inspectors there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've had inspectors try to go in there before, and they hide things and lie about things.  You cannot be serious.  Look, why don't you just admit, instead of trying to save face, that this is a terrible idea?  I've killed every one of your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize they already have nuclear power right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have been working on it and lying about it.  I know that much.  You do realize that Iran wants a nuclear weapon, right?
Click to expand...


You didn't know, shocking.  Well israel has them so why wouldn't Iran want them?
Nuclear program of Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey that's what your link says.  I still know example where sanctions have worked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Your posts don't even make sense.  It's like work having a discussion with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to read your own links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.  Several times.  I do notice, as do others, that you cannot refute any of my points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and Iran isn't fighting Isis.  Just being reported by everyone.  You haven't come close to making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.
> 
> I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.
> 
> As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.
Click to expand...


They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?  Your posts don't even make sense.  It's like work having a discussion with you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read your own links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have.  Several times.  I do notice, as do others, that you cannot refute any of my points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and Iran isn't fighting Isis.  Just being reported by everyone.  You haven't come close to making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.
> 
> I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.
> 
> As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .

ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman

But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.

Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to read your own links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.  Several times.  I do notice, as do others, that you cannot refute any of my points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure and Iran isn't fighting Isis.  Just being reported by everyone.  You haven't come close to making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.
> 
> I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.
> 
> As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
Click to expand...


That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have.  Several times.  I do notice, as do others, that you cannot refute any of my points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and Iran isn't fighting Isis.  Just being reported by everyone.  You haven't come close to making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.
> 
> I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.
> 
> As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
Click to expand...


No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.  

_Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._

_He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._

The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.

He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.

His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.

All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.

Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and Iran isn't fighting Isis.  Just being reported by everyone.  You haven't come close to making sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.
> 
> I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.
> 
> As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.
> 
> _Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._
> 
> _He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._
> 
> The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.
> 
> He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.
> 
> His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.
> 
> All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.
> 
> Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.
Click to expand...


It's just a guess at best.  It's backed by nothing.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have.  Several times.  I do notice, as do others, that you cannot refute any of my points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure and Iran isn't fighting Isis.  Just being reported by everyone.  You haven't come close to making sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.
> 
> I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.
> 
> As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
Click to expand...


So, this is your response.  "That is a lot of stupid."    That's what you say about the very educated opinions of a man who has actually LIVED in the ME amongst the people and who has first-hand knowledge about what is going on there?  

Sorry, but you are wrong, and I keep proving you wrong time after time after time, but you keep coming back to be proven wrong again.  I'm beginning to think you like to be wrong.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.
> 
> I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.
> 
> As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.
> 
> _Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._
> 
> _He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._
> 
> The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.
> 
> He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.
> 
> His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.
> 
> All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.
> 
> Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just a guess at best.  It's backed by nothing.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
Click to expand...


This has already been explained to you multiple times.  Ulterior motives.  Everything is going exactly the way Iran has planned.


----------



## ChrisL

I just hope others can see how ridiculous the posters on this site are.  I provide fact-based thoughtful posts about the situation with many links and have taken the time to excerpt quotes from those links.  What do I get in return is "that's stupid."  Lol.  I think it is obvious who is a political mouthpiece and who is stupid, and it is certainly not me.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never denied they were joining or at least claiming to.  I said they have ulterior motives.
> 
> I also would not doubt that Iran was funding ISIS in order to cause chaos in the ME, so that they can take advantage of the situation and take Iraq.
> 
> As was noted in some of my prior links, there are connections between the Syrians, Iran and ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.
> 
> _Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._
> 
> _He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._
> 
> The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.
> 
> He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.
> 
> His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.
> 
> All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.
> 
> Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just a guess at best.  It's backed by nothing.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
Click to expand...


Oh, if you had read my previous links, the connections are quite clear.  Iran is putting on a show and throwing about propaganda like always.  They have ulterior motives and one of them is the destruction of the governing body of Iraq.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> I just hope others can see how ridiculous the posters on this site are.  I provide fact-based thoughtful posts about the situation with many links and have taken the time to excerpt quotes from those links.  What do I get in return is "that's stupid."  Lol.  I think it is obvious who is a political mouthpiece and who is stupid, and it is certainly not me.



You have provided bad opinions.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.
> 
> _Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._
> 
> _He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._
> 
> The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.
> 
> He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.
> 
> His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.
> 
> All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.
> 
> Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just a guess at best.  It's backed by nothing.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has already been explained to you multiple times.  Ulterior motives.  Everything is going exactly the way Iran has planned.
Click to expand...


Yes and you want them to be stopped from getting nuclear power they already have.


----------



## Lakhota

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not funding the same group they are fighting.  Ridiculous.  You've been proven to not know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.
> 
> _Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._
> 
> _He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._
> 
> The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.
> 
> He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.
> 
> His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.
> 
> All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.
> 
> Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just a guess at best.  It's backed by nothing.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, if you had read my previous links, the connections are quite clear.  Iran is putting on a show and throwing about propaganda like always.  They have ulterior motives and one of them is the destruction of the governing body of Iraq.
Click to expand...


Wow, I bet Obama and Kerry don't know that.  You should call and warn them.


----------



## BlackSand

nat4900 said:


> Now, given this recent letter from those 47 dingbats, let's say you were a moderate, western educated Iranian, would you tend to side with the west, or with the Ayathollahs?



We want the people of Iran to stand up to the Ayatollah's ... Not give the Ayatollah's what they want.

How would the US signing an agreement with the Ayatollah's in Iran indicate we support the people of Iran?
The people of Iran are not going to prosper from the lifting of sanctions because they don't own crap.

If you think any of this makes President Obama look tough ... It doesn't.
He has already made a mess of his foreign policy ... And he cannot even keep Congress in line.
We are dealing with Ayatollah's that drag their political enemies out into the square and put a bullet in the back of their head (or whatever else they can think off).

They are laughing at President Obama and the rest of the United States ... Because they can twist us in knots and don't have the slightest intention of doing as agreed if an agreement is signed.

.


----------



## ChrisL

Lakhota said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.
> 
> _Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._
> 
> _He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._
> 
> The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.
> 
> He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.
> 
> His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.
> 
> All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.
> 
> Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just a guess at best.  It's backed by nothing.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, if you had read my previous links, the connections are quite clear.  Iran is putting on a show and throwing about propaganda like always.  They have ulterior motives and one of them is the destruction of the governing body of Iraq.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, I bet Obama and Kerry don't know that.  You should call and warn them.
Click to expand...


You mean Russel Chapman should?  I didn't write the article, you know.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yes they are.  Consider this . . .
> 
> ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman
> 
> But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.
> 
> Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.
> 
> _Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._
> 
> _He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._
> 
> The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.
> 
> He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.
> 
> His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.
> 
> All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.
> 
> Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just a guess at best.  It's backed by nothing.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has already been explained to you multiple times.  Ulterior motives.  Everything is going exactly the way Iran has planned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and you want them to be stopped from getting nuclear power they already have.
Click to expand...


Yes, I wish that was possible.  However, we can continue to sanction them and punish them for going against the IAEA and lying.  It's almost as if we are rewarding them.  WHY?  Why do you think Obama has decided to make this deal when just a few years ago, he was just as much against Iran having nukes as any republican?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10956998 





ChrisL said:


> That is why I think, if the US gets involved with another country's problems, we reserve the right to occupy such country/countries for as long as we see fit.



We were not invited in to resolve Iraq's problems - we invaded by choice instead of allowing the UN Security Council to disarm Iraq peacefully.

Who do we reserve the right to occupy any nation we want as long as we see fit. Do you want bring back Genghis Khan for President?


----------



## boedicca

BlackSand said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, given this recent letter from those 47 dingbats, let's say you were a moderate, western educated Iranian, would you tend to side with the west, or with the Ayathollahs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We want the people of Iran to stand up to the Ayatollah's ... Not give the Ayatollah's what they want.
> 
> How would the US signing an agreement with the Ayatollah's in Iran indicate we support the people of Iran?
> The people of Iran are not going to prosper from the lifting of sanctions because they don't own crap.
> 
> If you think any of this makes President Obama look tough ... It doesn't.
> He has already made a mess of his foreign policy ... And he cannot even keep Congress in line.
> We are dealing with Ayatollah's that drag their political enemies out into the square and put a bullet in the back of their head (or whatever else they can think off).
> 
> They are laughing at President Obama and the rest of the United States ... Because they can twist us in knots and don't have the slightest intention of doing as agreed if an agreement is signed.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Obama already proved to the people of Iran that they can't trust him when he punted on supporting the Green Revolution in 2009.  Instead of liberating Iran, he reinforced the Mullahs' control.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10956998
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I think, if the US gets involved with another country's problems, we reserve the right to occupy such country/countries for as long as we see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were not invited in to resolve Iraq's problems - we invaded by choice instead of allowing the UN Security Council to disarm Iraq peacefully.
> 
> Who do we reserve the right to occupy any nation we want as long as we see fit. Do you want bring back Genghis Khan for President?
Click to expand...


Okay, I never said that the Iraq war was a smart idea.  However, if we do get involved and go to war, the smart thing to do would be to occupy that country for as long as we deem necessary.  Why should we spend our lives and money to throw it all away because of political correctness?  We should not ever do that.  We stay until the job is done, IMO.  Regardless of what some "dictator" thinks about it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10957042 





ChrisL said:


> Let's take a look at some real in-depth polling statistics . . . since most people don't click on my links or bother to read the material, I took the liberty of posting it for you all.



Which one disputes or counters this poll which is pretty much the same this year?

There is no poll that shows Americans by a majority oppose the nuclear negotiations at all -  tell us which one you think does. 

Or stop complaining that no one reads you sources.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10956998
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I think, if the US gets involved with another country's problems, we reserve the right to occupy such country/countries for as long as we see fit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were not invited in to resolve Iraq's problems - we invaded by choice instead of allowing the UN Security Council to disarm Iraq peacefully.
> 
> Who do we reserve the right to occupy any nation we want as long as we see fit. Do you want bring back Genghis Khan for President?
Click to expand...


Another thing to consider is that Saddam was a thorn in the side of many nations, and to his own people.  Do you realize that he was a true psychopath?  A psychopath in control of all kinds of money and power who actually enjoyed torturing, raping and killing people?  So, I can understand why a lot of people would want to see him taken out.  

If we had managed this war correctly, we would still be in Iraq today, and ISIS would not be an issue.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10957042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at some real in-depth polling statistics . . . since most people don't click on my links or bother to read the material, I took the liberty of posting it for you all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one disputes or counters this poll which is pretty much the same this year?
> 
> There is no poll that shows Americans by a majority oppose the nuclear negotiations at all -  tell us which one you think does.
> 
> Or stop complaining that no one reads you sources.
Click to expand...


All of them.  All of the polls show that Americans are against Iran having nuclear power.  You are wrong.  IN fact, I linked you to two such polls which asked specific questions related to these issues.  The overwhelming majority of American people are against a nuclear Iran.  

Are you actually saying that you think the majority of Americans approve of a nuclear Iran?  Is that your argument here?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10957042
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's take a look at some real in-depth polling statistics . . . since most people don't click on my links or bother to read the material, I took the liberty of posting it for you all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one disputes or counters this poll which is pretty much the same this year?
> 
> There is no poll that shows Americans by a majority oppose the nuclear negotiations at all -  tell us which one you think does.
> 
> Or stop complaining that no one reads you sources.
Click to expand...


Here is the poll again.  Read it this time.  

Iran

And this specific excerpt . . . which notes that 64% of Americans feel it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action.  

*"In your opinion, which is more important: to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action, OR to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons?" *.

*Prevent from
developing
nuclear
weapons* *Avoid military
conflict* *Neither (vol.)* *Both (vol.)* *Unsure*
% % % % %


64 25 3 1 7
2/8-12/12

58 30 2 1 10
9/30 - 10/4/09

61 24 4 1 10


----------



## NotfooledbyW

CHrL 10960413 





ChrisL said:


> Are you actually saying that you think the majority of Americans approve of a nuclear Iran? Is that your argument here?



Where is the poll that says Americans oppose the negotiations that have been going on since 2013 when the question includes bargaining that allows Iran to have peaceful nuckear power? 60% of respondents approve of  making a deal.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> CHrL 10960413
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually saying that you think the majority of Americans approve of a nuclear Iran? Is that your argument here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the poll that says Americans oppose the negotiations that have been going on since 2013 when the question includes bargaining that allows Iran to have peaceful nuckear power? 60% of respondents approve of  making a deal.
Click to expand...


Link?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> CHrL 10960413
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually saying that you think the majority of Americans approve of a nuclear Iran? Is that your argument here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the poll that says Americans oppose the negotiations that have been going on since 2013 when the question includes bargaining that allows Iran to have peaceful nuckear power? 60% of respondents approve of  making a deal.
Click to expand...


BTW, post more than one poll that shows Americans approve.  Also, when specifically asked, Americans do not trust Iran to keep their nuclear program "peaceful" and we all pretty much know that is not why they want nuclear power.


----------



## Lakhota

*'EMBARRASSED' FOR SABOTEUR SENATORS*

Thank you, President Obama, for keeping us safe.  I'm sorry for the homegrown NaziCon saboteurs in our midst.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10960444 





ChrisL said:


> And this specific excerpt . . . which notes that 64% of Americans feel it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action.



What does that have to do with the current negotiations. I don't want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

If they go there after signing a deal that they won't develop a nuclear weapon or enrich uranium beyond a certain point hell yes bomb their facility before they can do it.

The majority of Americans support the negotiations that are currently underway and they support bombing Iran if they fail to live up to that treaty,


ChrL 10956880 





ChrisL said:


> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to _*let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama*_




So you lied. Because you cannot produce a poll that says the majority of Americans oppose making this deal allowing the peaceful use of nuclear energy if it can be reached and verifiable.

Obama is not agreeing to allow Iran to produce a nuclear bomb just like the other P4+1.

Thanks for pointing out the specific poll you had in mind so we could get you straightened out.

Next time go to what you are referring to right from the start.


----------



## Kondor3

The Republicans in Congress, and, indeed, vast numbers of Americans, no longer trust Barack Obama - if they ever did.

The President has served up a legacy of Weak Diplomacy and Bad Deals and Cry-Wolf Red Lines in the Sand.

The Republican Congressional letter to Iran is merely the latest manifestation of this particular state of affairs.

The letter is unprecedented.

So is the profound absence of trust in the President.


----------



## idb

ChrisL said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care.  What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.
Click to expand...

You don't want them to have nuclear power?
Such arrogance.

Are they allowed hydro, solar, gas, kittens...?
What form of power would you magnanimously give permission to the sovereign country of Iran to possess?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

*'Mistrust Is Growing': European Leaders Blast GOP Senators for Letter to Iran*
7 min ago - 'Mistrust Is Growing': European Leaders Blast GOP Senators for Letter to Iran 'This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva,' said German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. A ... (Common Dreams)


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> BTW, post more than one poll that shows Americans approve.  Also, when specifically asked, Americans do not trust Iran to keep their nuclear program "peaceful" and we all pretty much know that is not why they want nuclear power.


And you know this how?


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> The Republicans in Congress, and, indeed, vast numbers of Americans, no longer trust Barack Obama - if they ever did.
> 
> The President has served up a legacy of Weak Diplomacy and Bad Deals and Cry-Wolf Red Lines in the Sand.
> 
> The Republican Congressional letter to Iran is merely the latest manifestation of this particular state of affairs.
> 
> The letter is unprecedented.
> 
> So is the profound absence of trust in the President.


They're trained seals, doing Israel's bidding, like the bitches that they are.


----------



## orogenicman




----------



## nat4900

Only one real question remains....Who is dumber and much more harmful to the GOP....Tom Cotton or Sarah Palin?

Both (I just learned) were/are backed by Krystal.....(lol)


----------



## Contumacious

idb said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care.  What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want them to have nuclear power?
> Such arrogance.
> 
> Are they allowed hydro, solar, gas, kittens...?
> What form of power would you magnanimously give permission to the sovereign country of Iran to possess?
Click to expand...



Those are very disrespectful and arrogant questions.


According to the Constitution we must fully comply with whatever the Israeli Knesset demands.

So quit being stupid and delete the post.

Shalom.


.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lot of stupid.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid.  It makes perfect sense.  The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.
> 
> _Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere._
> 
> _He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC._
> 
> The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.
> 
> He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.
> 
> His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.
> 
> All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.
> 
> Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just a guess at best.  It's backed by nothing.  Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This has already been explained to you multiple times.  Ulterior motives.  Everything is going exactly the way Iran has planned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and you want them to be stopped from getting nuclear power they already have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I wish that was possible.  However, we can continue to sanction them and punish them for going against the IAEA and lying.  It's almost as if we are rewarding them.  WHY?  Why do you think Obama has decided to make this deal when just a few years ago, he was just as much against Iran having nukes as any republican?
Click to expand...


Again you have no grasp of what's going on.  You wanted to stop Iran from getting nuclear power they already have.  You claimed Iran is funding ISIS when they are actually fighting them.  You are just a joke.  Nobody wants Iran to have nukes.  That is why we need an agreement.  Sanctions will lead to them getting a nuke.  Sanctions have never worked anywhere and you've not been able to provide a single example where it has.  Did they keep North Korea from getting nukes?


----------



## rightwinger

This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy

We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance

Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President


----------



## nat4900

> Again you have no grasp of what's going on.  You wanted to stop Iran from getting nuclear power they already have.  You claimed Iran is funding ISIS when they are actually fighting them.  You are just a joke.  Nobody wants Iran to have nukes.  That is why we need an agreement.  Sanctions will lead to them getting a nuke.  Sanctions have never worked anywhere and you've been able to provide not a single example.  Did they keep North Korea from getting nukes?



My only "criticism" of you *Brain*, is that you actually tried to debate with that nitwit, ChrissyL.........you CANNOT chat with such jingoistic imbecility.


----------



## Brain357

nat4900 said:


> Again you have no grasp of what's going on.  You wanted to stop Iran from getting nuclear power they already have.  You claimed Iran is funding ISIS when they are actually fighting them.  You are just a joke.  Nobody wants Iran to have nukes.  That is why we need an agreement.  Sanctions will lead to them getting a nuke.  Sanctions have never worked anywhere and you've been able to provide not a single example.  Did they keep North Korea from getting nukes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only "criticism" of you *Brain*, is that you actually tried to debate with that nitwit, ChrissyL.........you CANNOT chat with such jingoistic imbecility.
Click to expand...


It is indeed a waste of time debating stupid.  She has no understanding of the issue, nor the intelligence to debate if she did understand the issue.


----------



## nat4900

rightwinger said:


> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President




Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.


----------



## Lakhota

Iran understands our Constitution better than 47 NaziCon Senators.


----------



## RoshanNair

nat4900 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
Click to expand...




rightwinger said:


> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President





rightwinger said:


> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President



Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?


----------



## Lakhota

*Here’s a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter*

The letter, spearheaded by Sen. Tom Cotton, was signed by 47 Republican senators. Seven GOP senators did not sign. Here's who signed:

Signatories:
Richard Shelby (Ala.)
Jeff Sessions (Ala.)
Dan Sullivan (Alaska)
John McCain (Ariz.)
John Boozman (Ark.)
Tom Cotton (Ark.)
Cory Gardner (Colo.)
Marco Rubio (Fla.)
Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
David Perdue (Ga.)
Mike Crapo (Idaho)
Jim Risch (Idaho)
Mark Kirk (Ill.)
Chuck Grassley (Iowa)
Joni Ernst (Iowa)
Pat Roberts (Kansas)
Jerry Moran (Kansas)
Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
Rand Paul (Ky.)
David Vitter (La.)
Bill Cassidy (La.)
Roger Wicker (Miss.)
Roy Blunt (Mo.)
Steve Daines (Mont.)
Deb Fischer (Neb.)
Ben Sasse (Neb.)
Dean Heller (Nev.)
Kelly Ayotte (N.H.)
Richard Burr (N.C.)
Thom Tillis (N.C.)
John Hoeven (N.D.)
Rob Portman (Ohio)
Jim Inhofe (Okla.)
James Lankford (Okla.)
Pat Toomey (Pa.)
Lindsey Graham (S.C.)
Tim Scott (S.C.)
John Thune (S.D.)
Mike Rounds (S.D.)
John Cornyn (Texas)
Ted Cruz (Texas)
Orin Hatch (Utah)
Mike Lee (Utah)
Shelley Moore Capito (W.V.)
Ron Johnson (Wis.)
Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
John Barrasso (Wyo.)

*Did not sign:*
Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)
Jeff Flake (Ariz.)
Daniel Coats (Ind.)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Thad Cochran (Miss.)
Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
Bob Corker (Tenn.)

Here's a list of the GOP senators who signed the Iran letter - The Washington Post

Is your Senator on the list?


----------



## Brain357

RoshanNair said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?
Click to expand...


These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage.  They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations.  Our enemies now see us as divided and weak.  I still am in shock at what these morons did.


----------



## rightwinger

nat4900 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
Click to expand...

Our allies around the globe must look at the inept foreign policies of Republucans and wonder what we see in these clowns


----------



## RoshanNair

Brain357 said:


> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage.  They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations.  Our enemies now see us as divided and weak.  I still am in shock at what these morons did.
Click to expand...


Why give a damn about "embarrassment on the world stage"? Are these senators your close relatives or something? No. As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.

And what gives you the impression that Iran sees us as "weak"? Divided, sure. That is a hallmark of a democracy, something Iran doesn't know shit about. But weak?


----------



## idb

Contumacious said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care.  What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want them to have nuclear power?
> Such arrogance.
> 
> Are they allowed hydro, solar, gas, kittens...?
> What form of power would you magnanimously give permission to the sovereign country of Iran to possess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those are very disrespectful and arrogant questions.
> 
> 
> According to the Constitution we must fully comply with whatever the Israeli Knesset demands.
> 
> So quit being stupid and delete the post.
> 
> Shalom.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I forgot about that Amendment.
Sorry.


----------



## Brain357

RoshanNair said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage.  They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations.  Our enemies now see us as divided and weak.  I still am in shock at what these morons did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why give a damn about "embarrassment on the world stage"? Are these senators your close relatives or something? No. As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> And what gives you the impression that Iran sees us as "weak"? Divided, sure. That is a hallmark of a democracy, something Iran doesn't know shit about. But weak?
Click to expand...


You are ok with having embarrassing leaders?  What message does that say to the world?  Can we still be taken seriously?  Will anyone bother trying to make agreements with us?  Divided is weak.


----------



## Lakhota

Senator Tom Cotton seems to be getting a lot of funding from Jewish groups.  Interesting...

Israel lobby's fingerprints are all over Republican letter to Iran but the media won't talk about it

Militaristic senator Cotton is funded by Abrams, Adelson and Kristol

Tom Cotton Gets Funds From Israeli Panel in Ark. Senate Race

You Will Be Shocked To Know Who's Been Grooming Tehran Tom - Crooks and Liars

*And the silver lining is that Bibi is getting his ass stomped.*

*Bad News For Bibi*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

RoshN 10961779. 





RoshanNair said:


> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?



Who exactly are you to say?

Here's a much more informed person that does not agree with your knee jerk evaluation of what is going on. Read this entire explanation from





Greg Rosenbaum Greg Rosenbaum is chair of the National Jewish Democratic Council.


Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum | The Blogs | The Times of Israel Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran Greg Rosenbaum The Blogs The Times of Israel




> Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us.
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |





> . In a perfect world, Iran would renounce terrorism, create a domestic oasis of human rights for its citizens, and stop threatening Israel and its neighbors. But that is not what is on the table in Geneva. What is on the table is a simple choice: do we prefer an Iran that remains hostile to Israel but does not have a quick path to nuclear weapons, or do we effectively end the possibility of a deal by insisting on something perfect but unattainable, increasing the likelihood that the result will be no deal whatsoever and an Iran with nuclear weapons?
> 
> The only substantive policy alternative Congressional Republicans have endorsed is the imposition of additional, unilateral U.S. sanctions. However, the most likely result of that policy would be dissolution of the first major power coalition to even bring Iran to the bargaining table.
> 
> Sanctions only brought Iran to the table when they were joined by Russia and China, thereby enabling central banking restrictions that severely squeezed Iran’s ability to obtain foreign currency and credit. Not only had Russia and China continued to trade with, and provide military support to, Iran prior to joining the P5+1 multilateral sanctions program, but even those who now argue most vehemently for new sanctions decried the failure of U.S. sanctions to cripple Iran’s economy for the decade before Russia and China joined the effort.
> 
> The Administration and our international partners believe additional sanctions, even those with “triggers” and “delayed imposition,” would violate the Joint Plan of Action (“JPA”) that is the foundation of today’s negotiations. They believe such sanctions are counterproductive. Not only would Iran have an excuse to walk from the table but, more importantly, Iran would have real proof it is the U.S. that cannot be trusted to keep its word, not Iran. The propaganda victory we would hand Iran under these circumstances is incalculable.
> 
> Such sanctions would also pose a threat to U.S.-Russian relations. The U.S., working with other oil-producing states, has pushed oil prices well below recent levels. This calculated effort pressures President Vladimir Putin and his adventurous ambitions in Ukraine and beyond. The currency of power in today’s Russia is not the threat of the gulag but the ability to dispense lots of cash. By shutting down the spigot of oil revenues to Russia, the U.S. has put Putin in a box from which he is struggling to extricate himself without losing popular support. Allowing Putin to point at the U.S. as acting in bad faith to unnecessarily break an international coalition would give him a way out of that box.


----------



## Dot Com

Lakhota said:


> Senator Tom Cotton seems to be getting a lot of funding from Jewish groups.  Interesting...
> 
> Israel lobby's fingerprints are all over Republican letter to Iran but the media won't talk about it
> 
> Militaristic senator Cotton is funded by Abrams, Adelson and Kristol
> 
> Tom Cotton Gets Funds From Israeli Panel in Ark. Senate Race
> 
> You Will Be Shocked To Know Who's Been Grooming Tehran Tom - Crooks and Liars
> 
> *And the silver lining is that Bibi is getting his ass stomped.*
> 
> *Bad News For Bibi*


yeah, I heard on the radio news that Bibi is down against his opponent in the race.


----------



## idb

RoshanNair said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage.  They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations.  Our enemies now see us as divided and weak.  I still am in shock at what these morons did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why give a damn about "embarrassment on the world stage"? Are these senators your close relatives or something? No. As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> And what gives you the impression that Iran sees us as "weak"? Divided, sure. That is a hallmark of a democracy, something Iran doesn't know shit about. But weak?
Click to expand...

?


> As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.


?


----------



## nat4900

Only a dozen years have passed since right wingers and neocons began royally screwing up any stability in the Middle East, and YET here we are and they're about to want to do it again......Amazing!


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## NotfooledbyW

RoshanNair said:


> As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.



What has Obama done that is not geared to protecting US citizens?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10960444
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this specific excerpt . . . which notes that 64% of Americans feel it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with the current negotiations. I don't want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
> 
> If they go there after signing a deal that they won't develop a nuclear weapon or enrich uranium beyond a certain point hell yes bomb their facility before they can do it.
> 
> The majority of Americans support the negotiations that are currently underway and they support bombing Iran if they fail to live up to that treaty,
> 
> 
> ChrL 10956880
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to _*let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you lied. Because you cannot produce a poll that says the majority of Americans oppose making this deal allowing the peaceful use of nuclear energy if it can be reached and verifiable.
> 
> Obama is not agreeing to allow Iran to produce a nuclear bomb just like the other P4+1.
> 
> Thanks for pointing out the specific poll you had in mind so we could get you straightened out.
> 
> Next time go to what you are referring to right from the start.
Click to expand...


I did post the link.  Not my fault if you can't read.  I can post it again if you'd like?  then maybe you will acknowledge it this time.  In fact, I posted a couple of polls which state that Americans do not want a nuclear Iran and do not trust Iran.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Obama done that is not geared to protecting US citizens?
Click to expand...


He is getting ready to okay a nuclear Iran.  Duh.  That puts the entire world at risk.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, post more than one poll that shows Americans approve.  Also, when specifically asked, Americans do not trust Iran to keep their nuclear program "peaceful" and we all pretty much know that is not why they want nuclear power.
> 
> 
> 
> And you know this how?
Click to expand...


Because they are polls.  Americans do not approve of a nuclear Iran, nor do they trust Iran.  It is really that simple.  Why on earth WOULD they?  Can you answer that question?

Iran


----------



## Lakhota

Is ChrisL smart enough to wipe her own ass?  I doubt it...


----------



## ChrisL

idb said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care.  What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want them to have nuclear power?
> Such arrogance.
> 
> Are they allowed hydro, solar, gas, kittens...?
> What form of power would you magnanimously give permission to the sovereign country of Iran to possess?
Click to expand...


Nobody wants them to have nuclear power.  NOBODY.    You are foolish to think otherwise.  Foolish and blinded by stupidity.


----------



## ChrisL

Lakhota said:


> Is ChrisL smart enough to wipe her own ass?  I doubt it...



Okay, welcome to my ignore list.  Another useless waste of a poster.  Bye bye loser!


----------



## ChrisL

Contumacious said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care.  What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want them to have nuclear power?
> Such arrogance.
> 
> Are they allowed hydro, solar, gas, kittens...?
> What form of power would you magnanimously give permission to the sovereign country of Iran to possess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those are very disrespectful and arrogant questions.
> 
> 
> According to the Constitution we must fully comply with whatever the Israeli Knesset demands.
> 
> So quit being stupid and delete the post.
> 
> Shalom.
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah, I agree.  Not to mention stupid and ridiculous questions from another one who cannot negate any of the claims I've made in this thread.   

This has to do with world security and the mess a nuclear Iran will cause in the ME.  Do you disagree with that and if so, why?


----------



## ChrisL

rightwinger said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our allies around the globe must look at the inept foreign policies of Republucans and wonder what we see in these clowns
Click to expand...


Correction, inept foreign policy of Obama.  His weakness is part of the reason for this deal.  He is a pussy who can't stomach his commitment to the Israelis as well as others in the ME who do not want to see a nuclear Iran.  He is a horrible president, that's for sure.


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL the resident foreign policy IAEA analyst.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL the resident foreign policy IAEA analyst.



That's true, at least compared to these idiots.  They don't understand the viewpoints of Iran.  They don't understand that you are supposed to stick by your allies, not appease your enemies.  They have no idea that the US sometimes has to do some unsavory things in the name of world security.  They want to appease the Iranians and are gambling with world security.  They are SOOOO stupid that I cannot even believe it to be honest.  Once Iran has the okay to develop nuclear power, they WILL have a nuclear weapon.  It's pretty much a guarantee.  This is going to cause an arms race in the ME with the Saudis and other ME countries that do not trust Iran.  These are just facts.  Sorry that you liberals cannot handle and do not like facts.


----------



## Vigilante

Lakhota said:


> Is ChrisL smart enough to wipe her own ass?  I doubt it...



You can always use you tongue, as you do with all us Patriots!


----------



## ChrisL

Does anyone really believe that Iran is interested in nuclear power for it's people, so that they may have more cost effective energy or something?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Vigilante




----------



## RoshanNair

NotfooledbyW said:


> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Obama done that is not geared to protecting US citizens?
Click to expand...




ChrisL said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??
> 
> Just asking........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care.  What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't want them to have nuclear power?
> Such arrogance.
> 
> Are they allowed hydro, solar, gas, kittens...?
> What form of power would you magnanimously give permission to the sovereign country of Iran to possess?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody wants them to have nuclear power.  NOBODY.    You are foolish to think otherwise.  Foolish and blinded by stupidity.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, Iran is only one part of the equation. In addition to constraining Iran was acquiring the bomb, Pakistan must also be forced to disarm.

Islamist hellholes are not to be trusted with nukes. These morons don't even value life.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


>


Taking that quote out of context again you fucking lying sack of shit. The whole paragraph the first sentence is contained in was posted yesterday with a link to the whole essay. STILL you attempt to show that he said something he never intended a reader take away from the piece.
The second, third and fourth sentences appears nowhere attributed to Cotton except in your image.

Perhaps you can either prove Rep Cotton said and actually meant these things, or admit you speak with forked tongue.


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha....i see the smearing of Cotton is already in full swing....you libs are contemptible losers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if those are some of the things this man truly believes, then he does not belong in American politics.  Us women will not accept such a person.
Click to expand...

Those are Progressive edits and out of context sentences. Extremely dishonest.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha....i see the smearing of Cotton is already in full swing....you libs are contemptible losers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if those are some of the things this man truly believes, then he does not belong in American politics.  Us women will not accept such a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are Progressive edits and out of context sentences. Extremely dishonest.
Click to expand...


I'm not surprised.  The more I post here, the more I despise them and realize just how dishonest they really are.  Makes you wonder what in the hell kind of people are these in RL?  Scary.  Lol.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> ...They're trained seals, doing Israel's bidding, like the bitches that they are.


Nonsense.


----------



## Kondor3

TyroneSlothrop said:


> *'Mistrust Is Growing': European Leaders Blast GOP Senators for Letter to Iran*
> 7 min ago - 'Mistrust Is Growing': European Leaders Blast GOP Senators for Letter to Iran 'This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva,' said German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. A ... (Common Dreams)


Well, yeah, no shit, Sherlock, that's the point, isn't it? A substantial percentage of the American People don't *WANT* the goddamned deal you're negotiating in Geneva.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> *'EMBARRASSED' FOR SABOTEUR SENATORS*
> 
> Thank you, President Obama, for keeping us safe.  I'm sorry for the homegrown NaziCon saboteurs in our midst.


I'm sorry Custer lost


----------



## Ernie S.

ChrisL said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hahaha....i see the smearing of Cotton is already in full swing....you libs are contemptible losers....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, if those are some of the things this man truly believes, then he does not belong in American politics.  Us women will not accept such a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those are Progressive edits and out of context sentences. Extremely dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised.  The more I post here, the more I despise them and realize just how dishonest they really are.  Makes you wonder what in the hell kind of people are these in RL?  Scary.  Lol.
Click to expand...

Here's the quote in context:

"Men are simple creatures. It doesn't take much to please us. The problem is women. How does an utterly simple creature understand an infinitely complex one? Since this creature realizes he is even simpler than most men, I knew only women could help me understand, well, women."

Promises and Covenants By Thomas B. Cotton,  October 3, 1997


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Of course they care. They like that manly man stuff. He wasn't a good president either, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying those men in the Arab world most certainly do care about and respect a "manly" man.
> 
> We look weak as a nation because we have a weak leader.



We look weak as a nation because we are fat, lazy and ignorant.  All wonderful Republican values.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?



You know what, Iran has nukes.  So what?  Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia, China, Israel, France, England and the US all have nukes.  

The only thing sillier than Obama signing a treaty with them they will obviously break is all these people pulling their hair out about Iran getting a nuke they can't do all that much with.


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuure. He didn't remember earning a Bronze Star with Valor.  He remembered the event but just forgot about being under fire ... forgot about his boat getting shot up ... forgot about how it was common for vietcong to open fire after boats hit mines ... forgot about being given a medal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except his boat wasn't shot up and he thought he was given the medal for coming to the aid of another boat that hit a mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, uh-huh
> 
> His [Thurlow] account was further called into question by a battle damage assessment report on another Swift boat, PCF-51, involved in the March 13 action. The report listed three .30-caliber bullet holes in the superstructure of the 50-foot patrol boat​
Click to expand...


Except that wasn't Kerry or Thrulow's swift boat with the bullet holes in it.  So that doesn't really wash, either.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> We need a leader who has some balls and isn't afraid to stand up to the insane faction in our world instead of trying to appease them.



Yeah, because clearly, we don't have nearly enough American boys coming home in body bags.  

How's this for a whacky idea.  Let's stop pretending Israel's problems are OUR problems.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I'm not surprised.  The more I post here, the more I despise them and realize just how dishonest they really are.  Makes you wonder what in the hell kind of people are these in RL?  Scary.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the quote in context:
> 
> "Men are simple creatures. It doesn't take much to please us. The problem is women. How does an utterly simple creature understand an infinitely complex one? Since this creature realizes he is even simpler than most men, I knew only women could help me understand, well, women."
> 
> Promises and Covenants By Thomas B. Cotton,  October 3, 1997
Click to expand...


Hey, Cleetus, that's still pretty sexist.


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they care. They like that manly man stuff. He wasn't a good president either, and that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying those men in the Arab world most certainly do care about and respect a "manly" man.
> 
> We look weak as a nation because we have a weak leader.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We look weak as a nation because we are fat, lazy and ignorant.  All wonderful Republican values.
Click to expand...



really...the republicans promote that....?  and the fact that democrats control public education, the entertainment industry, public sector unions, and the media...which all promote the things you bring up....and you blame republicans......,,you really don't think things through do you?


----------



## 2aguy

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we should never agree to a nuclear Iran. That is stupid beyond belief. Of course Iran would breach any agreements. You people cannot be this dumb, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what, Iran has nukes.  So what?  Pakistan, India, North Korea, Russia, China, Israel, France, England and the US all have nukes.
> 
> The only thing sillier than Obama signing a treaty with them they will obviously break is all these people pulling their hair out about Iran getting a nuke they can't do all that much with.
Click to expand...



yeah....but Iran says they are going to use them to bring back the 12 Imam and bring about the Muslim end times........a lot different attitude than those other countries....


try this.....think of all the deluded fantasies you have about Christians and what you think they are like....you know...you think they are crazy, irrational loons.....and now think about giving them nuclear weapons....right?



Now....in reality, those  stupid things you attribute to American Christians areactual realities in Iran...and you think it is okay to let them have a nuclear weapon.....you are the nut......not us....


----------



## 2aguy

ChrisL said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL the resident foreign policy IAEA analyst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, at least compared to these idiots.  They don't understand the viewpoints of Iran.  They don't understand that you are supposed to stick by your allies, not appease your enemies.  They have no idea that the US sometimes has to do some unsavory things in the name of world security.  They want to appease the Iranians and are gambling with world security.  They are SOOOO stupid that I cannot even believe it to be honest.  Once Iran has the okay to develop nuclear power, they WILL have a nuclear weapon.  It's pretty much a guarantee.  This is going to cause an arms race in the ME with the Saudis and other ME countries that do not trust Iran.  These are just facts.  Sorry that you liberals cannot handle and do not like facts.
Click to expand...



an arms race with Iran already stating they are going to use the nuclear weapon to kill Israel.......they are actually saying this....to everyone......without reservation......and the Lefties say...yeah...they don't really mean it.......the left has no ability to understand actual evil......they see good people as bad, and bad people as good....they are f****d in the head....


----------



## Care4all

2aguy said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL the resident foreign policy IAEA analyst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, at least compared to these idiots.  They don't understand the viewpoints of Iran.  They don't understand that you are supposed to stick by your allies, not appease your enemies.  They have no idea that the US sometimes has to do some unsavory things in the name of world security.  They want to appease the Iranians and are gambling with world security.  They are SOOOO stupid that I cannot even believe it to be honest.  Once Iran has the okay to develop nuclear power, they WILL have a nuclear weapon.  It's pretty much a guarantee.  This is going to cause an arms race in the ME with the Saudis and other ME countries that do not trust Iran.  These are just facts.  Sorry that you liberals cannot handle and do not like facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> an arms race with Iran already stating they are going to use the nuclear weapon to kill Israel.......they are actually saying this....to everyone......without reservation......and the Lefties say...yeah...they don't really mean it.......the left has no ability to understand actual evil......they see good people as bad, and bad people as good....they are f****d in the head....
Click to expand...

Link to Iran stating they are going to use their nuclear weapons to kill Israel.....  YOU Said they are saying this to EVERYONE so it shouldn't be hard to link up to that with any recent quotes of them stating this....???

EDIT, ok I read your post above your last post that I initially responded to... and it seems you are Presuming such based on other things....?


----------



## Care4all

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Obama done that is not geared to protecting US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He is getting ready to okay a nuclear Iran.  Duh.  That puts the entire world at risk.
Click to expand...

And YOU KNOW this, how?  that's A HUGE leap....you know, no such thing Chris.


----------



## rightwinger

RoshanNair said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage.  They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations.  Our enemies now see us as divided and weak.  I still am in shock at what these morons did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why give a damn about "embarrassment on the world stage"? Are these senators your close relatives or something? No. As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> And what gives you the impression that Iran sees us as "weak"? Divided, sure. That is a hallmark of a democracy, something Iran doesn't know shit about. But weak?
Click to expand...

Do you understand what foreign policy is?  Of course embarrassment on the world stage impacts it

Suppose you were to tell the world that another country had WMDs and that they need to help you invade them.......then after you invaded you found nothing

Don't you think embarrassment matters?


----------



## rightwinger

Ernie S. said:


> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking that quote out of context again you fucking lying sack of shit. The whole paragraph the first sentence is contained in was posted yesterday with a link to the whole essay. STILL you attempt to show that he said something he never intended a reader take away from the piece.
> The second, third and fourth sentences appears nowhere attributed to Cotton except in your image.
> 
> Perhaps you can either prove Rep Cotton said and actually meant these things, or admit you speak with forked tongue.
Click to expand...


What difference does it make?


----------



## Brain357

rightwinger said:


> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage.  They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations.  Our enemies now see us as divided and weak.  I still am in shock at what these morons did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why give a damn about "embarrassment on the world stage"? Are these senators your close relatives or something? No. As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> And what gives you the impression that Iran sees us as "weak"? Divided, sure. That is a hallmark of a democracy, something Iran doesn't know shit about. But weak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand what foreign policy is?  Of course embarrassment on the world stage impacts it
> 
> Suppose you were to tell the world that another country had WMDs and that they need to help you invade them.......then after you invaded you found nothing
> 
> Don't you think embarrassment matters?
Click to expand...


They lowered our standing in the world and showed us as divided and weak.  I bet Putin is very happy.  Who elects senators to make us look weak on a world stage?


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our allies around the globe must look at the inept foreign policies of Republucans and wonder what we see in these clowns
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correction, inept foreign policy of Obama.  His weakness is part of the reason for this deal.  He is a pussy who can't stomach his commitment to the Israelis as well as others in the ME who do not want to see a nuclear Iran.  He is a horrible president, that's for sure.
Click to expand...


Maybe he figured out israel hasn't done much for us while making us lots of enemies and taking lots of aid.  Maybe israel doesn't make friends because they use us to bully the region.  Maybe he remembers how netanyahu was wrong about Iraq.  The region needs peace, not war.


----------



## nat4900

> They lowered our standing in the world and showed us as divided and weak.  I bet Putin is very happy.  *Who elects senators to make us look weak on a world stage?*



Well, as we're painfully finding out, it is not just voters who elect and select our DC representation....rather, elections seem to boil down to money and influence.......

The wackiness of Tom Cotton is being "nurtured" by none other than Bill Krystol (yeah, the same nut who nurtured Sarah Palin).....Krystol and the American Enterprise Institute see in Cotton the potential for a true Manchurian candidate they can manipulate and mold to their wacky and dangerous agenda.

The Iran letter was just a first test by Krystol in seeing how Cotton's reputation could be nurtured.....Obviously this first test failed.....but they'll be others.


----------



## Carla_Danger

nat4900 said:


> They lowered our standing in the world and showed us as divided and weak.  I bet Putin is very happy.  *Who elects senators to make us look weak on a world stage?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as we're painfully finding out, it is not just voters who elect and select our DC representation....rather, elections seem to boil down to money and influence.......
> 
> The wackiness of Tom Cotton is being "nurtured" by none other than Bill Krystol (yeah, the same nut who nurtured Sarah Palin).....Krystol and the American Enterprise Institute see in Cotton the potential for a true Manchurian candidate they can manipulate and mold to their wacky and dangerous agenda.
> 
> The Iran letter was just a first test by Krystol in seeing how Cotton's reputation could be nurtured.....Obviously this first test failed.....but they'll be others.
Click to expand...



Excellent!  And nice to meet you, btw.


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> eally...the republicans promote that....? and the fact that democrats control public education, the entertainment industry, public sector unions, and the media...which all promote the things you bring up....and you blame republicans......,,you really don't think things through do you?



Yeah, the republicans are the ones who want to teach fairy tales in science class, and make sure that kids can buy one gallon big-gulps... 

And you all think Sarah Palin is smart.


----------



## Carla_Danger

nat4900 said:


> They lowered our standing in the world and showed us as divided and weak.  I bet Putin is very happy.  *Who elects senators to make us look weak on a world stage?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as we're painfully finding out, it is not just voters who elect and select our DC representation....rather, elections seem to boil down to money and influence.......
> 
> The wackiness of Tom Cotton is being "nurtured" by none other than Bill Krystol (yeah, the same nut who nurtured Sarah Palin).....Krystol and the American Enterprise Institute see in Cotton the potential for a true Manchurian candidate they can manipulate and mold to their wacky and dangerous agenda.
> 
> The Iran letter was just a first test by Krystol in seeing how Cotton's reputation could be nurtured.....Obviously this first test failed.....but they'll be others.
Click to expand...



I am using this advanced technology system to let you know that I'm sending you a PM.  (giggle)


----------



## JoeB131

2aguy said:


> yeah....but Iran says they are going to use them to bring back the 12 Imam and bring about the Muslim end times........a lot different attitude than those other countries....



Do you have a quote of them saying that, or is that just what you think they believe?


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah....but Iran says they are going to use them to bring back the 12 Imam and bring about the Muslim end times........a lot different attitude than those other countries....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a quote of them saying that, or is that just what you think they believe?
Click to expand...


Well, right wingers don't really need direct quotes of such assertions......subconsciously, they learned these "facts" from such great minds like Sean Ham-ity


----------



## Carla_Danger

nat4900 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah....but Iran says they are going to use them to bring back the 12 Imam and bring about the Muslim end times........a lot different attitude than those other countries....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a quote of them saying that, or is that just what you think they believe?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, right wingers don't really need direct quotes of such assertions......subconsciously, they learned these "facts" from such great minds like Sean Ham-ity
Click to expand...



I'm a little behind on the news (been busy) but I hear Bill Kristol has been grooming this "Tehran Tom" Cotton, and I think "Tehran Tom" is an appropriate label.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Recognize anyone in the picture below, dingbat?????



Which means what, fucking idiot?


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Just to piss off all the "bomb, bomb Iran" arm-chair "warriors on this thread...a bit of history other than your usual "...all I need to know I learn from FOX..."
> 
> Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic relations, stated, "....there are lots of Christian churches and synagogues in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, Indonesia, Qatar, Kuwait. … If you go to any number of so-called Muslim countries you will see thriving Christian and Jewish populations." One member of the Iranian Parliament is Jewish....The only one where you don't see it, where you can't have a Christian church or synagogue is Saudi Arabia"........[our "ally" and gas station.]



The moment someone starts quoting CAIR is the moment they prove their worthlessness.  Why don't you and that c-nt hooper - a possibly co-conspirator with terrorists - inform everyone what has been happening to those christians and those churches in the mideast.  And i laugh when people bring up the one token jew in the iranian majlis, there used to be millions of jews in iran, theres now under 20K, so what does that say?  If Israel only allowed 1 arab to represent all of the arabs in israel, scumbags like you would scream, you and the left are so fucking non-credible and so amazingly stupid for being unable to recognize your moronic hypocrisy and cluelessness.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Now, now, I was responding to the idiot (RoughRoadsScholar).....LOL



With more deflective nonsense since you lack the brains to debate with facts.  Yes, you're THAT fucking stupid.


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a leader who has some balls and isn't afraid to stand up to the insane faction in our world instead of trying to appease them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, because clearly, we don't have nearly enough American boys coming home in body bags.
> 
> How's this for a whacky idea.  Let's stop pretending Israel's problems are OUR problems.
Click to expand...

Its long past time to cut the apron strings.


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Your position is owned by Israel, the rest of the world wants an agreement.  Why are you more loyal to Israel than the US?



Basically, the far left moron position is, yes, iran is a monstrosity, yes, iran is a terrorist state, yes iran is slaughtering hundreds of thousands, but but but Israel SQUAWK israel wants this SQUAWK war is bad SQUAWK.  

When the assholes run out of all plausible arguments, they try and skate by with the loyalty to Israel hail mary insult garbage.  And they think it helps them...Its like a conversation between a rational adult and a mental institution patient.


----------



## nat4900

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now, now, I was responding to the idiot (RoughRoadsScholar).....LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With more deflective nonsense since you lack the brains to debate with facts.  Yes, you're THAT fucking stupid.
Click to expand...



Well, *fraudscholar*, pissing you off is always a good thing, don't you think? Try a little less profanity in your posts....that may make you look a little less desperate and, of course, less stupid.


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?



It was iran who created ISIS, and has fomented the environment by oppressing sunnis across the mideast that has stoked the flames of support for it.  Had iran not armed and drove shia militias in iraq to attack sunnis, had iran not created hezbollah to repress sunnis in lebanon, had iran not helped assad mass slaughter 250K sunnis in syria, there would be no groundswell of support for ISIS.

ISIS' issue is that its leadership is fucking stupid, had they just focused on targeting shia militias and even better, iran itself, then the whole planet of sane humans, including myself would have enthusiastically supported them.  But the assholes didn't, so we're left with two abominations, them and iran.


----------



## nat4900

Well, as right wingers clamor for yet ANOTHER war with their "bomb, bomb, Iran..." it would be helpful to remember WHO they wish to pulverize.....and showing common faces of ordinary Iranians are always a good "balm" for their prurient desire to kill, kill, kill.....


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Well, *fraudscholar*, pissing you off is always a good thing, don't you think? Try a little less profanity in your posts....that may make you look a little less desperate and, of course, less stupid.



Shit for brains, I have yet to see one single leftist - including assholes like you who started the insults - offer a rational post against war with iran. None of you can defend obama's lunatic position, none of you can defend your own positions, all i see are juvenile trolling deflections and personal attacks, the requisite last fallback position of the mentally defeated and exhausted.  The left has zero credibility on iran, none, zip.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Well, as right wingers clamor for yet ANOTHER war with their "bomb, bomb, Iran..." it would be helpful to remember WHO they wish to pulverize.....and showing common faces of ordinary Iranians are always a good "balm" for their prurient desire to kill, kill, kill.....



Now the far left tries to appeal to the emotions to try and manufacture a defense.  As I said right above, they are totally incapable of arguing a rational position against, so its "lets toss out pictures of pretty girls and hope that distracts them."

The IQ test for liberals is if it rises above 85 you go to the conservative side...


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.



What ISIS has done to syria?  Are you that fucking stupid?  Do you have any fucking idea what assad and his masters in iran have done to syria?  Their barrel bombing of whole cities has killed 50 times more people than ISIS EVER could.  

And since you c-nts like to mention Israel, why did you bastards screech about Israel killing 2K terrorists last year, but have remained silent with assad/iran slaughtering TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND?  Is it because you are clueless liberal brainwashed trash too stupid to think for yourselves?


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> The stupidity is almost impressive.  She seems to know so little in the way of facts, but continues embarrassing herself.



You're a complete asshole, there's no other way to put it.  In about 25 posts, you have not brought a single cogent thought or link-based argument, all you've done is insult.  I've decided its time to report you and get you removed from this thread.


----------



## rhodescholar

ChrisL said:


> So, the leftists have nothing left but to call me names because they cannot refute any of my most valid and truthful posts.    Then we have others posting memes off google images.
> 
> I think I am going to declare myself the winner of this debate.



This forum REALLY REALLY needs better posters on the left.  I belong to many other forums, and at least some of them there are intelligent people on the left who can actually think for themselves - they are not obama poodles - and can debate like an adult with thoughtful arguments, not "you're an israel firster", or "but the US did _ that! _" juvenile stupid shit.


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was iran who created ISIS, and has fomented the environment by oppressing sunnis across the mideast that has stoked the flames of support for it.  Had iran not armed and drove shia militias in iraq to attack sunnis, had iran not created hezbollah to repress sunnis in lebanon, had iran not helped assad mass slaughter 250K sunnis in syria, there would be no groundswell of support for ISIS.
> 
> ISIS' issue is that its leadership is fucking stupid, had they just focused on targeting shia militias and even better, iran itself, then the whole planet of sane humans, including myself would have enthusiastically supported them.  But the assholes didn't, so we're left with two abominations, them and iran.
Click to expand...


Are all right wingers this confused?  Iran did not create ISIS.  They were created by taking out saddam, and then they got funding from some Sunni nation.  Iran is fighting ISIS.


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can.  Iran supports Syria.  Have you noticed what Isis has done to Syria.  Isis will move on Iran after Syria and Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ISIS has done to syria?  Are you that fucking stupid?  Do you have any fucking idea what assad and his masters in iran have done to syria?  Their barrel bombing of whole cities has killed 50 times more people than ISIS EVER could.
> 
> And since you c-nts like to mention Israel, why did you bastards screech about Israel killing 2K terrorists last year, but have remained silent with assad/iran slaughtering TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND?  Is it because you are clueless liberal brainwashed trash too stupid to think for yourselves?
Click to expand...


ISIS is fighting Syria who is supported by Iran.  So naturally Iran is fighting ISIS.


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> Okay let's look at their history.  Everything I've seen Iran doing seems designed to defend themselves from being attacked.  I don't see them amassing troops, preparing for some sort of invasion somewhere.  Do you? * The fact is that Iran has never started a war in the past 100 years. * They were attacked by Saddam Hussein in 1979, and responded by defending themselves in an all out war with that country.  Can you blame them for wanting to defend themselves?  So  what war do you suppose they want?



I am tired of educating stupid, lazy people who post garbage like this.  They are either really lazy and stupid, or on iran's payroll, since no one reading the news in the last ten years could even try to make this point.


----------



## Lakhota

No Democrats signed the treasonous NaziCon letter to Iran.  Not a single one of them.


----------



## Faun

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, *fraudscholar*, pissing you off is always a good thing, don't you think? Try a little less profanity in your posts....that may make you look a little less desperate and, of course, less stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains, I have yet to see one single leftist - including assholes like you who started the insults - offer a rational post against war with iran. None of you can defend obama's lunatic position, none of you can defend your own positions, all i see are juvenile trolling deflections and personal attacks, the requisite last fallback position of the mentally defeated and exhausted.  The left has zero credibility on iran, none, zip.
Click to expand...

A rational reason not to go to war?

How about the fact that it took us 9 years to defeat a bunch of insurgents in Iraq whose numbers were measured in the tens of thousands? They had little training,  no formal army, no navy, no air force. And Iraq is 1/3 the size of Iran.

Then there's the fact that Iran has neither attacked us nor threatened to.

Lastly, why would you want to give them a justifiable reason to nuke us?


----------



## rightwinger

nat4900 said:


> They lowered our standing in the world and showed us as divided and weak.  I bet Putin is very happy.  *Who elects senators to make us look weak on a world stage?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as we're painfully finding out, it is not just voters who elect and select our DC representation....rather, elections seem to boil down to money and influence.......
> 
> The wackiness of Tom Cotton is being "nurtured" by none other than Bill Krystol (yeah, the same nut who nurtured Sarah Palin).....Krystol and the American Enterprise Institute see in Cotton the potential for a true Manchurian candidate they can manipulate and mold to their wacky and dangerous agenda.
> 
> The Iran letter was just a first test by Krystol in seeing how Cotton's reputation could be nurtured.....Obviously this first test failed.....but they'll be others.
Click to expand...

You can't blame Tom Cotton

In that 47 Senators there are dozens with the experience and understanding to know better


----------



## rhodescholar

boedicca said:


> _
> *In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops.* Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.
> _
> A Contrived Controversy The Weekly Standard



Don't forget that pelosi called assad a "reformer" - as did john kerry several times - over the past several years.

There was another event where jimmy carter inserted into the n korean situation and the sitting president was none too pleased...

Former President Jimmy Carter s Mission to North Korea

Carter Visit to North Korea - Whose Trip Was It Really - NYTimes.com


----------



## Lakhota

Seeing Nutanyahoo defeated may be the silver lining in the treasonous NaziCon letter to Iran.

*Netanyahu Blames Flagging Poll Numbers On Global Leftist Plot*


----------



## rhodescholar

Faun said:


> Then there's the fact that Iran has neither attacked us nor threatened to.
> 
> Lastly, why would you want to give them a justifiable reason to nuke us?



You stupid fucking idiot asshole, do you have any idea how many american soldiers those fucking bastard iranians injured or killed in iraq?  THOUSANDS.  THE US SHOULD HAVE PULVERIZED IRAN years ago, and iran has lived and enjoyed a position of war by subterfuge, proxy, and terrorism for way, way too long.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

chrL 10962239 





ChrisL said:


> I posted a couple of polls which state that Americans do not want a nuclear Iran and do not trust Iran




You keep playing word games with polls that don't support your wild claims and accusations - so here is the record of most of your posts through Post 1887 page 289

Americans approve of the negotiations and making a deal that allows Iran to have nuclear peaceful energy.

You claim they don't.

You have not provided anything to counter the two years of polls that show that a majority of Republicans Democrats and Independents support the nuclear deal being negotiated between P5+1 and Iran.

10956724. 





ChrisL said:


> h, so IOW, you are intimidated by Iran's threats? Lol. This figures. You liberals are a bunch of pussies.



10956734 





ChrisL said:


> Kudos to those who signed the letter. At least somebody is thinking.



10956845 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Your concern that Obama is making a mistake has just become absolutely irrelevant. The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:



10956880 





ChrisL said:


> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama. Even if it doesn't do any good, they will be shown to be correct in the future.



10956965 





ChrisL said:


> Why don't you post the entire thing? Now, this says nothing about how Americans feel about Iran becoming nuclear.
> 
> Nearly 60 percent of Americans have heard at least something about the open letter, and 42 percent say it was inappropriate, while 28 percent find it appropriate and the remainder aren't sure -- a divide similar to views on the invitation for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress, which 47 percent of Americans said was inappropriate.



10956724 





ChrisL said:


> I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care. What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.



10956990 





ChrisL said:


> No, HERE is something to think about . . .
> 
> Along with setting off a mad race to attain nuclear weapons that would involve Saudi Arabia, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that a nuclear Iran would arm terrorists that would strike at the United States.
> 
> This brings to mind the recent Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington, DC. The plan called for setting off weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> While there is disagreement on what should or shoudn't be done there is general agreement that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
> 
> Which raises the question, How would the world change if Iran goes nuclear?
> 
> As stated above, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other oil rich states have said they would do whatever they needed to do to acquire nuclear weapons. Imagine, multiple nations becoming nuclear powers overnight. As Secretary Hague said, the proliferation of nations with nuclear weapons would unsettle the world order. It would increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used, stolen, and falling into hands of terrorists.
> 
> Can Iran be stopped from attaining nuclear weapons?
> 
> Edit: Oops, forgot the link. Exclusive Analysis Would a Nuclear Capable Iran Change the World - Secure America Now




Nope, they haven't. A lot of people are glad they spoke out against this ridiculousness


*Mod Edit:  The sheer volume of quotes cut and pasted here is ridiculous and an abuse of space.  Please pick a few pertinant examples next time.  Post shortened.*


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> *In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops.* Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.
> _
> A Contrived Controversy The Weekly Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that pelosi called assad a "reformer" - as did john kerry several times - over the past several years.
> 
> There was another event where jimmy carter inserted into the n korean situation and the sitting president was none too pleased...
> 
> Former President Jimmy Carter s Mission to North Korea
> 
> Carter Visit to North Korea - Whose Trip Was It Really - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...


Former presidents have no power...


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.



It is your credibility that is nonexistent.  Iran and its poodle assad have been avoiding fighting ISIS in syria while they concentrate on the more moderate FSA and other rebellious groups.  Facts much?


----------



## boedicca

Brain357 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> *In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops.* Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.
> _
> A Contrived Controversy The Weekly Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that pelosi called assad a "reformer" - as did john kerry several times - over the past several years.
> 
> There was another event where jimmy carter inserted into the n korean situation and the sitting president was none too pleased...
> 
> Former President Jimmy Carter s Mission to North Korea
> 
> Carter Visit to North Korea - Whose Trip Was It Really - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Former presidents have no power...
Click to expand...



That is naive nonsense.  Former presidents have connections and influence, otherwise, why would so many foreign governments donate to the Clinton Foundation?

Government service has turned into an influence-rent-seeking racket, and that is a form of power.


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is that ISIS is supported by Iran at the same time they are giving them a shellacking on the battlefield? Wow, your compartmentalization of duplicity is, in a word, astounding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is your credibility that is nonexistent.  Iran and its poodle assad have been avoiding fighting ISIS in syria while they concentrate on the more moderate FSA and other rebellious groups.  Facts much?
Click to expand...


Iran is helping Iraq take back Tikrit as we speak...


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East?  They understand what is at stake far more than you do.  That much is obvious.  They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people.  And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country.  They came to us, asking for discussions.  They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working.  You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences.  That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.



I had hoped you'd be the one leftist who could intelligent debate, you proved me wrong.  Iran's army and intelligence units are ALREADY running 4-5 other nations in the region, they are already at war.  They have moved right up to Israel's border in the golan, and are planning a massive regional war to expand their shia crescent wider.  Had you any sense instead of idiotic talking points, you might have been a decent commentators, but instead, you chose the path of stupidity, sadly.


----------



## Brain357

boedicca said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> *In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops.* Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.
> _
> A Contrived Controversy The Weekly Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that pelosi called assad a "reformer" - as did john kerry several times - over the past several years.
> 
> There was another event where jimmy carter inserted into the n korean situation and the sitting president was none too pleased...
> 
> Former President Jimmy Carter s Mission to North Korea
> 
> Carter Visit to North Korea - Whose Trip Was It Really - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Former presidents have no power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is naive nonsense.  Former presidents have connections and influence, otherwise, why would so many foreign governments donate to the Clinton Foundation?
> 
> Government service has turned into an influence-rent-seeking racket, and that is a form of power.
Click to expand...


That can hardly be compared to senators who are currently in office.  A former president has no vote in anything and no real power.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay let's look at their history.  Everything I've seen Iran doing seems designed to defend themselves from being attacked.  I don't see them amassing troops, preparing for some sort of invasion somewhere.  Do you? * The fact is that Iran has never started a war in the past 100 years. * They were attacked by Saddam Hussein in 1979, and responded by defending themselves in an all out war with that country.  Can you blame them for wanting to defend themselves?  So  what war do you suppose they want?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am tired of educating stupid, lazy people who post garbage like this.  They are either really lazy and stupid, or on iran's payroll, since no one reading the news in the last ten years could even try to make this point.
Click to expand...


Really?  And you call yourself a Rhodes Scholar?  I don't think so.


----------



## Lakhota

*With Iran Letter, GOP Senators Basically Say 'Don't Trust America'*

So, _that_ happened. This week, Iranian leaders got a letter, authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and signed by 46 other Republican senators, in which a clear message was sent. That message? "No one should ever take the United States of America at its word." Why did this have to happen?

More: So That Happened: With Iran Letter, GOP Senators Basically Say 'Don't Trust America'

Foreign countries must be shaking their heads.


----------



## paulitician

The day the Communist Organizer in Chief boasted about not needing Congress, is the day all goodwill and trust was lost. So to hell with him.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you honestly believe that Iran doesn't understand what would happen to their country were they to acquire, and then use nuclear weapons in the Middle East?  They understand what is at stake far more than you do.  That much is obvious.  They fought a god-awful war with Iraq that ravaged their people.  And the current sanctions have bankrupted and impoverished their country.  They came to us, asking for discussions.  They would not have done that if the sanctions weren't working.  You people are too fast and loose with the cannons, and never think of the consequences.  That makes you right wingers far more dangerous than Iran will ever be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had hoped you'd be the one leftist who could intelligent debate, you proved me wrong.  Iran's army and intelligence units are ALREADY running 4-5 other nations in the region, they are already at war.  They have moved right up to Israel's border in the golan, and are planning a massive regional war to expand their shia crescent wider.  Had you any sense instead of idiotic talking points, you might have been a decent commentators, but instead, you chose the path of stupidity, sadly.
Click to expand...


Really?  And your evidence that "Iran's army and intelligence units are ALREADY running 4-5 other nations in the region" is?  Which nations are they running?  Do they sign the checks, deliver the mail, pick up the trash?  What, exactly, are they doing in these 4-5 nations?  And where is your evidence?  Speaking of stupidity...


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> Really?  And you call yourself a Rhodes Scholar?  I don't think so.



No one besides a fucking moron can claim that iran has not started a war recently, NO ONE.


----------



## Brain357

paulitician said:


> The day the Communist Organizer in Chief boasted about not needing Congress, is the day all goodwill and trust was lost. So to hell with him.



And our country I guess right?  Who cares that he was elected to be the president.  You want a dictator right?


----------



## boedicca

Brain357 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> *In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops.* Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.
> _
> A Contrived Controversy The Weekly Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that pelosi called assad a "reformer" - as did john kerry several times - over the past several years.
> 
> There was another event where jimmy carter inserted into the n korean situation and the sitting president was none too pleased...
> 
> Former President Jimmy Carter s Mission to North Korea
> 
> Carter Visit to North Korea - Whose Trip Was It Really - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Former presidents have no power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is naive nonsense.  Former presidents have connections and influence, otherwise, why would so many foreign governments donate to the Clinton Foundation?
> 
> Government service has turned into an influence-rent-seeking racket, and that is a form of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That can hardly be compared to senators who are currently in office.  A former president has no vote in anything and no real power.
Click to expand...



You poor widdle booby.  Think that if it gives you comfort.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And you call yourself a Rhodes Scholar?  I don't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one besides a fucking moron can claim that iran has not started a war recently, NO ONE.
Click to expand...


No one in their right mind would make that claim and then expect anyone to simply take their word for it. NO ONE.  What war have they started?  Where are your news reports from the front lines?


----------



## Brain357

boedicca said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> *In 2007, newly elected House speaker Nancy Pelosi traveled to Syria to meet with dictator Bashar al-Assad. At the time of the trip, the Bush administration was seeking to isolate Assad, whose regime was supporting insurgents in Iraq who were targeting U.S. troops.* Pelosi disregarded the administration’s request to cancel her trip. Instead, she appeared in Damascus and reassured the world that Assad was eager to be a constructive player in the region and wanted peace with Israel.
> _
> A Contrived Controversy The Weekly Standard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that pelosi called assad a "reformer" - as did john kerry several times - over the past several years.
> 
> There was another event where jimmy carter inserted into the n korean situation and the sitting president was none too pleased...
> 
> Former President Jimmy Carter s Mission to North Korea
> 
> Carter Visit to North Korea - Whose Trip Was It Really - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Former presidents have no power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is naive nonsense.  Former presidents have connections and influence, otherwise, why would so many foreign governments donate to the Clinton Foundation?
> 
> Government service has turned into an influence-rent-seeking racket, and that is a form of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That can hardly be compared to senators who are currently in office.  A former president has no vote in anything and no real power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You poor widdle booby.  Think that if it gives you comfort.
Click to expand...


Sorry it's just a fact.  A former president has no power.  Sorry that ruins your whole point, but it is true.


----------



## Brain357

Some Republican senators surprised by backlash to Iran letter - The Washington Post

How can these senators be surprised?  Do they really not even understand what they have done?


----------



## Faun

rhodescholar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then there's the fact that Iran has neither attacked us nor threatened to.
> 
> Lastly, why would you want to give them a justifiable reason to nuke us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You stupid fucking idiot asshole, do you have any idea how many american soldiers those fucking bastard iranians injured or killed in iraq?  THOUSANDS.  THE US SHOULD HAVE PULVERIZED IRAN years ago, and iran has lived and enjoyed a position of war by subterfuge, proxy, and terrorism for way, way too long.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of insurgents were Iraqi. The remainder came from virtually every other country in the region. Furthermore, in no cases did they represent the nation from which they came. Such as the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq ... he in no way represented Jordan, although he himself was Jordanian.

So what else have ya got besides invective?


----------



## JoeB131

rhodescholar said:


> Basically, the far left moron position is, yes, iran is a monstrosity, yes, iran is a terrorist state, *yes iran is slaughtering hundreds of thousands*, but but but Israel SQUAWK israel wants this SQUAWK war is bad SQUAWK.
> 
> When the assholes run out of all plausible arguments, they try and skate by with the loyalty to Israel hail mary insult garbage. And they think it helps them...Its like a conversation between a rational adult and a mental institution patient.



Iran isn't slaughtering hundreds of thousands.  Frankly, Israel screams all day, but Iran hasn't attacked Israel.  Iran isn't a threat to Israel.  And we should stop pretending Israel's problems are our problems.


----------



## boedicca

Brain357 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that pelosi called assad a "reformer" - as did john kerry several times - over the past several years.
> 
> There was another event where jimmy carter inserted into the n korean situation and the sitting president was none too pleased...
> 
> Former President Jimmy Carter s Mission to North Korea
> 
> Carter Visit to North Korea - Whose Trip Was It Really - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Former presidents have no power...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That is naive nonsense.  Former presidents have connections and influence, otherwise, why would so many foreign governments donate to the Clinton Foundation?
> 
> Government service has turned into an influence-rent-seeking racket, and that is a form of power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That can hardly be compared to senators who are currently in office.  A former president has no vote in anything and no real power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You poor widdle booby.  Think that if it gives you comfort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry it's just a fact.  A former president has no power.  Sorry that ruins your whole point, but it is true.
Click to expand...



It's a fact that you have no idea what power is.  There are various forms of power.   POLITICAL power often trumps Legal Authority, as can be seen on a near constant basis.

Obama made Hilary SecState because of Bubba's still quite considerable political power.  Obama fears that Bubba is more popular, and hence politically powerful, than he is himself.   And again, WHY DO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS DONATE SO MUCH MONEY to the Clinton Foundation, if not to ride Bubba's political power?


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> Really?  And your evidence that "Iran's army and intelligence units are ALREADY running 4-5 other nations in the region" is?  Which nations are they running?  Do they sign the checks, deliver the mail, pick up the trash?  What, exactly, are they doing in these 4-5 nations?  And where is your evidence?  Speaking of stupidity...



Is that your argument, that because iranians are not doing civil service work in lebanon, iraq, syria and yemen, they are not in control of the country?  So I really did over rate you.


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> No one in their right mind would make that claim and then expect anyone to simply take their word for it. NO ONE.  What war have they started?  Where are your news reports from the front lines?



There are iranian troops in all of the countries i mentioned, yet we did not see the people of those countries voting to be invaded by iran.

The USSR was in control of 21 other countries during the Cold War, yet no one sane would argue that the populations of those satellites were willing participants in the subversion of their country.

Shit for brains liberals like this rail agains the US for allegedly deposing the iranian PM in '53, or for interfering in central/south american governments in the 70s/'80s, yet they give a pass to iran for conquering four other countries.  This is a good example of the complete lack of intelligence on the left.


----------



## rhodescholar

Faun said:


> The vast majority of insurgents were Iraqi. The remainder came from virtually every other country in the region. Furthermore, in no cases did they represent the nation from which they came. Such as the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq ... he in no way represented Jordan, although he himself was Jordanian. So what else have ya got besides invective?



What are you talking about?  The FSA was comprised of sunnis who defected from the syrian army.


----------



## JoeB131

rhodescholar said:


> Don't forget that pelosi called assad a "reformer" - as did john kerry several times - over the past several years.
> 
> There was another event where jimmy carter inserted into the n korean situation and the sitting president was none too pleased...



George W. Bush also had a chummy relationship with Assad, especially when we were outsourcing torture operations there.  

US sent Extraordinary Rendition Victims to Syria and other Inconvenient Truths


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Sorry it's just a fact.  A former president has no power.  Sorry that ruins your whole point, but it is true.



Yet clinton and obama were furious with carter for interfering in the negotiations/diplomacy, so unlike a fucking palm tree, he must have had some influence.  But like a good dumb liberal, you'll keep arguing a point long after you've failed...when you're in a hole - stop digging.


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry it's just a fact.  A former president has no power.  Sorry that ruins your whole point, but it is true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet clinton and obama were furious with carter for interfering in the negotiations/diplomacy, so unlike a fucking palm tree, he must have had some influence.  But like a good dumb liberal, you'll keep arguing a point long after you've failed...when you're in a hole - stop digging.
Click to expand...


Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president.  I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations.  There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns.  Sanctions are dependent on these other countries.  There is no defending their actions.


----------



## Faun

rhodescholar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of insurgents were Iraqi. The remainder came from virtually every other country in the region. Furthermore, in no cases did they represent the nation from which they came. Such as the leader of Al-Qaeda in Iraq ... he in no way represented Jordan, although he himself was Jordanian. So what else have ya got besides invective?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about?  The FSA was comprised of sunnis who defected from the syrian army.
Click to expand...

Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.


----------



## Coyote

ChrisL said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
Click to expand...


I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> I'm not surprised.  The more I post here, the more I despise them and realize just how dishonest they really are.  Makes you wonder what in the hell kind of people are these in RL?  Scary.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the quote in context:
> 
> "Men are simple creatures. It doesn't take much to please us. The problem is women. How does an utterly simple creature understand an infinitely complex one? Since this creature realizes he is even simpler than most men, I knew only women could help me understand, well, women."
> 
> Promises and Covenants By Thomas B. Cotton,  October 3, 1997
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, Cleetus, that's still pretty sexist.
Click to expand...

If you read it like a complete idiot, I suppose it might be. I don't see that.


----------



## Ernie S.

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking that quote out of context again you fucking lying sack of shit. The whole paragraph the first sentence is contained in was posted yesterday with a link to the whole essay. STILL you attempt to show that he said something he never intended a reader take away from the piece.
> The second, third and fourth sentences appears nowhere attributed to Cotton except in your image.
> 
> Perhaps you can either prove Rep Cotton said and actually meant these things, or admit you speak with forked tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does it make?
Click to expand...

What difference does Lakhotove being a lying sack of shit today make? None what ever. He was a lying sack of shit yesterday too. He will be tomorrow as well, but someone has to point out his lies and distortions.


----------



## rhodescholar

Faun said:


> Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.



So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.


----------



## Ernie S.

Brain357 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, rest assured that even beyond this latest debacle, right wingers just ensured  that they won't occupy the WH for a couple of future decades......Look, they've alienated blacks, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, most sane women, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is another example of Republican blundering of foreign policy
> 
> We saw how they botched eight years under Bush with nation building and destroying our western alliance
> 
> Now we see inept politicking by Republicans in Congress taking sides with Iranian extremists over a Democratic President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage.  They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations.  Our enemies now see us as divided and weak.  I still am in shock at what these morons did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why give a damn about "embarrassment on the world stage"? Are these senators your close relatives or something? No. As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> And what gives you the impression that Iran sees us as "weak"? Divided, sure. That is a hallmark of a democracy, something Iran doesn't know shit about. But weak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand what foreign policy is?  Of course embarrassment on the world stage impacts it
> 
> Suppose you were to tell the world that another country had WMDs and that they need to help you invade them.......then after you invaded you found nothing
> 
> Don't you think embarrassment matters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lowered our standing in the world and showed us as divided and weak.  I bet Putin is very happy.  Who elects senators to make us look weak on a world stage?
Click to expand...

We elected Senators to stop obama's agenda and to once again be strong on the world stage.


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president.  I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations.  There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns.  Sanctions are dependent on these other countries.  There is no defending their actions.



All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions.  Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.  

But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.


----------



## Ernie S.

Coyote said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
Click to expand...

Look! I'm willing to bet that you don't think insane Americans should own guns, right?
Countries with insane leadership and radical dogma shouldn't have atom bombs for the same reason.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Suuuure. He didn't remember earning a Bronze Star with Valor.  He remembered the event but just forgot about being under fire ... forgot about his boat getting shot up ... forgot about how it was common for vietcong to open fire after boats hit mines ... forgot about being given a medal ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except his boat wasn't shot up and he thought he was given the medal for coming to the aid of another boat that hit a mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, uh-huh
> 
> His [Thurlow] account was further called into question by a battle damage assessment report on another Swift boat, PCF-51, involved in the March 13 action. The report listed three .30-caliber bullet holes in the superstructure of the 50-foot patrol boat​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that wasn't Kerry or Thrulow's swift boat with the bullet holes in it.  So that doesn't really wash, either.
Click to expand...

I guess you're just going to bounce from one excuse to the next, huh? Even if they're not true. 

Actually, yes, it was Thurlow's boat, PCF-51, which was shot up.

Furthermore, Robert Lambert, who also served on PCF-51 and the third man to earn a Bronze Star for bravery that day, also recalls them earning their Bronze Stars with 'V' *for being under fire. * And he was on the same boat as Thurlow.


----------



## Coyote

Ernie S. said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look! I'm willing to bet that you don't think insane Americans should own guns, right?
> Countries with insane leadership and radical dogma shouldn't have atom bombs for the same reason.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying they SHOULD have a nuke.  I'm saying look at the realistic alternatives.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president.  I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations.  There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns.  Sanctions are dependent on these other countries.  There is no defending their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions.  Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.
> 
> But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.
Click to expand...


Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.



Treaties that the soviets broke almost immediately.

BTW, those who keep whining that iran wouldn't use a nuke against israel miss 2 basic facts:

1- they don't need to, the threat of the nuclear umbrella empower their terrorist army proxies
2-its is vastly more difficult to trace the source of an atomic bomb than the media or the clueless make it out to be. 

Were iran to use one, or hand it off to a proxy, there is no certainty it can be traced back to them, and given the amount of propaganda/misdirection/Israel hatred one sees in the world - so many idiots still think Israel is a greater threat to world peace than iran no matter what iran does, there would be a huge amount of backlash and effort to not retaliate against iran.  The jew-haters and anti-western trash, led by the nose by putin and khameini, would bleat "it wasn't iran!" all day, so it is not as black and white as declaring iran did it, and attacking them.

Iran murdered thousands of american GIs in iraq, yet we still see the far left railing against retaliating against them even now.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?



That was a position they could not argue against, but don't think they did not try to paint Nixon as a liar and a fraud when he landed in china.  Democrats have never held back undermining a sitting president before, it is only the news media driving this furor so that the bleating sheep can whine, "oh, the senators are just so _ awful _!"....you're being played, and are not smart enough to see it.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Treaties that the soviets broke almost immediately.
> 
> BTW, those who keep whining that iran wouldn't use a nuke against israel miss 2 basic facts:
> 
> 1- *they don't need to*, the threat of the nuclear umbrella empowered their terrorist army proxies
> 2-*its is vastly more difficult to trace the source of an atomic bomb* than the media or the clueless make it out to be.



1.  Exactly.  That is why the constant refrain of nuclear annilation is irrelevant.  None of this means that any of us want to see Iran with nuclear weaponry.  Where we disagree is the best strategy to prevent or contain it.
2.  Not really. There are only a small number of countries in that area that possess nuclear bombs and their capabilities are well known.





> Were iran to use one, or hand it off to a proxy, there is no certainty it can be traced back to them, and given the amount of propaganda/misdirection/Israel hatred one sees in the world - so many idiots still think Israel is a greater threat to world peace than iran no matter what iran does, there would be a huge amount of backlash and effort to not retaliate against iran.  The jew-haters and anti-western trash, led by the nose by putin and khameini, would bleat "it wasn't iran!" all day, so it is not as black and white as declaring iran did it, and attacking them.
> 
> Iran murdered thousands of american GIs in iraq, yet we still see the far left railing against retaliating against them even now.



Do we want yet a third war in the Middle East?  I do not see any country handing nuclear weaponry off to a proxy because the destruction would effect everyone.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a position they could not argue against, but don't think they did not try to paint Nixon as a liar and a fraud when he landed in china. * Democrats have never held back undermining a sitting president before,* it is only the news media driving this furor so that the bleating sheep can whine, "oh, the senators are just so _ awful _!"....you're being played, and are not smart enough to see it.
Click to expand...


Not to this extent.  I can't recall an incident of a group of Democrats creating a letter specifically telling a foreign power that whatever they negotiate with the president will be nullified when he's out of office.  That is a line I have not seen crossed before and it amazes me that you guys keep defending it.  If Dems did that to a Repub president you would not defend it.  It doesn't matter who does it - it's way over the line and it is unprecedented.  Even their own party is uncomfortable with that.


----------



## Ernie S.

Coyote said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look! I'm willing to bet that you don't think insane Americans should own guns, right?
> Countries with insane leadership and radical dogma shouldn't have atom bombs for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying they SHOULD have a nuke.  I'm saying look at the realistic alternatives.
Click to expand...

The only realistic alternative is to prevent, by any means necessary Iran's acquisition of atomic bombs.
The Senate has some suggestions for President obama and seeing they have to approve any agreement he negotiates, it would be in his best interest to seek the advice of the Senate majority during negotiations to avoid the embarrassment of having his "great achievement" tossed in the trash when it reaches the Senate floor.

BUT, he will not include the GOP, instead thinking he can sign an agreement by executive order or some such shit. One day he looks like a weak ineffectual pussy, the next he looks like a tin pot dictator. Which is he?


----------



## Brain357

Ernie S. said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RoshanNair said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage.  They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations.  Our enemies now see us as divided and weak.  I still am in shock at what these morons did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why give a damn about "embarrassment on the world stage"? Are these senators your close relatives or something? No. As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.
> 
> And what gives you the impression that Iran sees us as "weak"? Divided, sure. That is a hallmark of a democracy, something Iran doesn't know shit about. But weak?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you understand what foreign policy is?  Of course embarrassment on the world stage impacts it
> 
> Suppose you were to tell the world that another country had WMDs and that they need to help you invade them.......then after you invaded you found nothing
> 
> Don't you think embarrassment matters?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They lowered our standing in the world and showed us as divided and weak.  I bet Putin is very happy.  Who elects senators to make us look weak on a world stage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We elected Senators to stop obama's agenda and to once again be strong on the world stage.
Click to expand...


Well they made us look weak and divided.  Better vote differently next time.  I'm sure Putin is loving them.


----------



## Coyote

Ernie S. said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look! I'm willing to bet that you don't think insane Americans should own guns, right?
> Countries with insane leadership and radical dogma shouldn't have atom bombs for the same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not saying they SHOULD have a nuke.  I'm saying look at the realistic alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The only realistic alternative is to prevent, by any means necessary Iran's acquisition of atomic bombs.
> The Senate has some suggestions for President obama and* seeing they have to approve any agreement he negotiates*, it would be in his best interest to seek the advice of the Senate majority during negotiations to avoid the embarrassment of having his "great achievement" tossed in the trash when it reaches the Senate floor.
Click to expand...


They do NOT have to approve any agreement he negotiates.  Look at the history of executive agreements in negotiations - it did not start with Obama.  It would not be in his best interests to seek the advice of the Senate majority because they are more interested in preventing any kind of achievement for Obama and this has been their stance since he was elected and before he even set foot in office.



> BUT, he will not include the GOP, instead thinking he can sign an agreement by executive order or some such shit. One day he looks like a weak ineffectual pussy, the next he looks like a tin pot dictator. Which is he?



He will only need to include the Senate if it becomes a treaty.  

What exact alternatives do you suggest that Iranians would accept?  Like I said - if all the options are bad then you are forced to choose the best of a bad lot and that is what we have.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> If you read it like a complete idiot, I suppose it might be. I don't see that.



Of course you don't.  You also don't see why flying the flag of people who wanted to keep slavery legal MIGHT be offensive to black folks.  

Cotton is another typical knuckle-dragger from the south. It's amazing he walks upright.


----------



## Lakhota

The Sunday talk shows should be very interesting - watching those NaziCon Senators trying to spin their treason.  I'm curious how Fox's Chris Wallace will address the issue.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> We elected Senators to stop obama's agenda and to once again be strong on the world stage.



Um, yeah. How does this accomplish that, exactly?  

We've just told the Iranians, Britsh, German, French, Russians and Chinese that we can't be trusted to uphold any agreement we make because the GOP is so batshit crazy they'd sabotage an agreement to either make Obama look bad or pander to the Zionists. 

At some point, those other countries might just say, "Screw it, we'll make our own agreement with the Iranians," and just move on without us.   Then we have no leverage at all.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  And your evidence that "Iran's army and intelligence units are ALREADY running 4-5 other nations in the region" is?  Which nations are they running?  Do they sign the checks, deliver the mail, pick up the trash?  What, exactly, are they doing in these 4-5 nations?  And where is your evidence?  Speaking of stupidity...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that your argument, that because iranians are not doing civil service work in lebanon, iraq, syria and yemen, they are not in control of the country?  So I really did over rate you.
Click to expand...


Evidence, dude.  Present it or admit that you are making this stuff up (and it isn't even make up shit Thursday, go figure).


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> The only realistic alternative is to prevent, by any means necessary Iran's acquisition of atomic bombs.
> The Senate has some suggestions for President obama and seeing they have to approve any agreement he negotiates, it would be in his best interest to seek the advice of the Senate majority during negotiations to avoid the embarrassment of having his "great achievement" tossed in the trash when it reaches the Senate floor.
> 
> BUT, he will not include the GOP, instead thinking he can sign an agreement by executive order or some such shit. One day he looks like a weak ineffectual pussy, the next he looks like a tin pot dictator. Which is he?



Neither.  Past presidents have reached agreements with foreign countries without it being a "treaty".  He doesn't really need to go to the Senate to get sanctions lifted, most of those were presidential sanctions.  (This is how Reagan didn't get fitted for an orange jump suit when he outright sold WEAPONS to Iran.)  

Realistically, Iran will get a bomb sooner or later.  There's really not much we can do about it short of setting off World War III.  It's better to have Iran integrated back into the global community than to have it be an isolated country of angry people.  

Here's  hint.  We've never gone to war with a country that's had a McDonalds.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> 2.  Not really. There are only a small number of countries in that area that possess nuclear bombs and their capabilities are well known.



This is false, the methods scientists use is a catalog of listed materials that countries voluntarily provide the IAEA, if iran has an unlisted stock there is no way to prove it was theirs.



> Do we want yet a third war in the Middle East?  I do not see any country handing nuclear weaponry off to a proxy because the destruction would effect everyone.



I want to eradicate the regime of iran, not attack the whole country, or even the nuke facilities.  I would bomb the government buildings, and the homes of the major officials, and use spec forces to kill/capture them.  That regime can not exist any longer, it is a cancerous war mongering terror state whose regime cannot be trusted in any agreement.  Peace in the ME is impossible as long as that regime exists.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one in their right mind would make that claim and then expect anyone to simply take their word for it. NO ONE.  What war have they started?  Where are your news reports from the front lines?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are iranian troops in all of the countries i mentioned, yet we did not see the people of those countries voting to be invaded by iran.
> 
> The USSR was in control of 21 other countries during the Cold War, yet no one sane would argue that the populations of those satellites were willing participants in the subversion of their country.
> 
> Shit for brains liberals like this rail agains the US for allegedly deposing the iranian PM in '53, or for interfering in central/south american governments in the 70s/'80s, yet they give a pass to iran for conquering four other countries.  This is a good example of the complete lack of intelligence on the left.
Click to expand...


Since it is not true, certainly not demonstrated by you, that Iran has invaded anyone, much less conquered them, one must asked who you paid to acquire your alleged Rhodes Scholarship.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> I want to eradicate the regime of iran, not attack the whole country, or even the nuke facilities.  I would bomb the government buildings, and the homes of the major officials, and use spec forces to kill/capture them.  That regime can not exist any longer, it is a cancerous war mongering state whose regime cannot be trusted in any agreement.  Peace in the ME is impossible as long as that regime exists.



Peace in the ME would be impossible if we did that and we would become the cancerous war mongering state.


----------



## rhodescholar

orogenicman said:


> Evidence, dude.  Present it or admit that you are making this stuff up (and it isn't even make up shit Thursday, go figure).



Just be a good little girl and stay quiet, the adults are talking now, and you can have your milk and cookies...go ahead...


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Not really. There are only a small number of countries in that area that possess nuclear bombs and their capabilities are well known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is false, the methods scientists use is a catalog of listed materials that countries voluntarily provide the IAEA, if iran has an unlisted stock there is no way to prove it was theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do we want yet a third war in the Middle East?  I do not see any country handing nuclear weaponry off to a proxy because the destruction would effect everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I want to eradicate the regime of iran, not attack the whole country, or even the nuke facilities.  I would bomb the government buildings, and the homes of the major officials, and use spec forces to kill/capture them.  That regime can not exist any longer, it is a cancerous war mongering terror state whose regime cannot be trusted in any agreement.  Peace in the ME is impossible as long as that regime exists.
Click to expand...


Ah just like we were just going to get rid of Saddam.  That didn't work and neither will your stupid plan.  You planning to go do it yourself or are you a chickenhawk?


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Peace in the ME would be impossible if we did that and we would become the cancerous war mongering state.



As I pointed out, iran is fomenting wars across the mideast, is running terrorist proxies in many other countries, and is despised by the majority sunni populations who will not tolerate living under an iranian jackboot forever.  Either you get iran out of lebanon, yemen, iraq, bahrain, and morocco, or you will have festering wars - and probably a major one - in the near term.


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence, dude.  Present it or admit that you are making this stuff up (and it isn't even make up shit Thursday, go figure).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just be a good little girl and stay quiet, the adults are talking now, and you can have your milk and cookies...go ahead...
Click to expand...


Adults would provide evidence.  It's clear who the adult is...not you.


----------



## orogenicman

rhodescholar said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence, dude.  Present it or admit that you are making this stuff up (and it isn't even make up shit Thursday, go figure).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just be a good little girl and stay quiet, the adults are talking now, and you can have your milk and cookies...go ahead...
Click to expand...


Yes, the adults are talking.  So why are you here?


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Ah just...



My post above to the other dimwit is appropriate here: Just be a good little girl and stay quiet, the adults are talking now, and you can have your milk and cookies...go ahead...


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace in the ME would be impossible if we did that and we would become the cancerous war mongering state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out, iran is fomenting wars across the mideast, is running terrorist proxies in many other countries, and is despised by the majority sunni populations who will not tolerate living under an iranian jackboot forever.  Either you get iran out of lebanon, yemen, iraq, bahrain, and morocco, or you will have festering wars - and probably a major one - in the near term.
Click to expand...


And all your info is probably less accurate than what we had on Iraq, and that was all wrong.


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> Adults would provide evidence.  It's clear who the adult is...not you.



Evidence for what asshole?  What is on the cover of the fucking NYT?  Go read a newspaper.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2.  Not really. There are only a small number of countries in that area that possess nuclear bombs and their capabilities are well known.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is false, the methods scientists use is a catalog of listed materials that countries voluntarily provide the IAEA, if iran has an unlisted stock there is no way to prove it was theirs.
Click to expand...


Your assuming that they would give a bomb to a third party proxy?  I think it would be pretty easy to figure out who provided the material.  They seem pretty good at tracing the movement of material with NK for example and NK is even more secretive and a totally closed society.

I also question whether Iran - if it gets - nuclear weaponry (and that is a long way off from it's current position) - that it would risk letting into the hands of proxies which are unstable and fluid and not necesarily under their complete control.  I don't see that regime as "insane" - calculating, ambitious but not insane.


----------



## Lakhota

Why are NaziCons so desperate to go to war with Iran?  War is always an option - so why not exhaust all other peaceful means first?


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Adults would provide evidence.  It's clear who the adult is...not you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence for what asshole?  What is on the cover of the fucking NYT?  Go read a newspaper.
Click to expand...


He asked you for evidence and you responded like a child.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace in the ME would be impossible if we did that and we would become the cancerous war mongering state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out, iran is fomenting wars across the mideast, is running terrorist proxies in many other countries, and is despised by the majority sunni populations who will not tolerate living under an iranian jackboot forever.  Either you get iran out of lebanon, yemen, iraq, bahrain, and morocco, or you will have festering wars - and probably a major one - in the near term.
Click to expand...


And realistically how would you do that without:

Turning the Iranian civilian population against the west.
Turning much of the Muslim world against the US.
Likely turning much of the Western world against the US.
Further destabilizing the ME to the point where radical groups like IS gain a foothold in even more territory.
What is worse - Iran or IS/similar groups?

Jesus that is just nuts!


----------



## JoeB131

rhodescholar said:


> I want to eradicate the regime of iran, not attack the whole country, or even the nuke facilities. I would bomb the government buildings, and the homes of the major officials, and use spec forces to kill/capture them. That regime can not exist any longer, it is a cancerous war mongering terror state whose regime cannot be trusted in any agreement. Peace in the ME is impossible as long as that regime exists.



Guy, get real. the Iranians vote for their government and they have a higher voter participation rate than we do.   You guys keep claiming you want "democracy", but when they vote for people you don't like, you get upset.  

Iranians aren't doing anything to bother me.  I don't mistake Zionist concerns for my own.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Your assuming that they would give a bomb to a third party proxy?  I think it would be pretty easy to figure out who provided the material.  They seem pretty good at tracing the movement of material with NK for example and NK is even more secretive and a totally closed society.
> 
> I also question whether Iran - if it gets - nuclear weaponry (and that is a long way off from it's current position) - that it would risk letting into the hands of proxies which are unstable and fluid and not necesarily under their complete control.  I don't see that regime as "insane" - calculating, ambitious but not insane.



Yes, the nuclear anti-proliferation regime has a history of such effectiveness with countries like pakistan, india, and n korea...NOT.

The syrians had almost completed their reactor before israel bombed it, and the UN/IAEA and everyone else had no idea it was there.  Should I go on?

Second, iran has dozens of terrorist groups it is using all over the world, some of whom are not even known so it is not implausible they would hand a small one off for them to use.  Even a low-blast yield unit would create absolute panic/chaos, so it is certainly not anything I'd put past them given how many hundreds of thousands they've killed in syria and elsewhere.


----------



## Coyote

Lakhota said:


> Why are NaziCons so desperate to go to war with Iran? * War is always an option - so why not exhaust all other peaceful means first?*



Exactly!

My guess is those agitating for war will be ensconced in their comfy armchairs should that occur.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace in the ME would be impossible if we did that and we would become the cancerous war mongering state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out, iran is fomenting wars across the mideast, is running terrorist proxies in many other countries, and is despised by the majority sunni populations who will not tolerate living under an iranian jackboot forever.  Either you get iran out of lebanon, yemen, iraq, bahrain, and morocco, or you will have festering wars - and probably a major one - in the near term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And realistically how would you do that without:
> 
> Turning the Iranian civilian population against the west.
> Turning much of the Muslim world against the US.
> Likely turning much of the Western world against the US.
> Further destabilizing the ME to the point where radical groups like IS gain a foothold in even more territory.
> What is worse - Iran or IS/similar groups?
> 
> Jesus that is just nuts!
Click to expand...


The muslim world is 85% sunni, do you think they would actually be against an attack on iran?  You need to get out of your florida condo, and see the rest of the world.  I come from a muslim country, and can guarantee you that the sunnis would be cheering in the streets - they fucking hate persia.


----------



## JoeB131

rhodescholar said:


> Yes, the nuclear anti-proliferation regime has a history of such effectiveness with countries like pakistan, india, and n korea...NOT.
> 
> The syrians had almost completed their reactor before israel bombed it, and the UN/IAEA and everyone else had no idea it was there. Should I go on?



And so why does Israel get to have nukes but Iran doesn't?  



rhodescholar said:


> Second, iran has dozens of terrorist groups it is using all over the world, some of whom are not even known so it is not implausible they would hand a small one off for them to use. Even a low-blast yield unit would create absolute panic/chaos, so it is certainly not anything I'd put past them given how many hundreds of thousands they've killed in syria and elsewhere.



How is Iran responsible for Syrians killing each other?  

So Iran is going to spend half it's GNP making a bomb and then hand it off to some bad actors and hope for the best?  Seriously?   You've been watching too many bad action movies.


----------



## JoeB131

rhodescholar said:


> The muslim world is 85% sunni, do you think they would actually be against an attack on iran? You need to get out of your florida condo, and see the rest of the world. I come from a muslim country, and can guarantee you that the sunnis would be cheering in the streets - they fucking hate persia.



Uh no, they wouldn't.  as much as Arabs might hate Persians and Sunnis' Might hate Shi'ites, they hate the Zionists even more.


----------



## Lakhota

Time is the only cure for tribal hatred in the Middle East.


----------



## Brain357

War is the result when politicians fail.  These senators are promoting war and failure.  It is unacceptable.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your assuming that they would give a bomb to a third party proxy?  I think it would be pretty easy to figure out who provided the material.  They seem pretty good at tracing the movement of material with NK for example and NK is even more secretive and a totally closed society.
> 
> I also question whether Iran - if it gets - nuclear weaponry (and that is a long way off from it's current position) - that it would risk letting into the hands of proxies which are unstable and fluid and not necesarily under their complete control.  I don't see that regime as "insane" - calculating, ambitious but not insane.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the nuclear anti-proliferation regime has a history of such effectiveness with countries like pakistan, india, and n korea...NOT.
Click to expand...


Agree - *it's not perfectly effective* - yet no one presents viable alternatives.  What do you do when you're faced with a set of bad alternatives?  What would you do with NK?  Attack it?  And set loose a war on the border of SK and nuclear powered China who would be faced with millions of NK refugees?  The world is interconnected and actions have profound and often unrealized consequences - like the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Peace in the ME would be impossible if we did that and we would become the cancerous war mongering state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out, iran is fomenting wars across the mideast, is running terrorist proxies in many other countries, and is despised by the majority sunni populations who will not tolerate living under an iranian jackboot forever.  Either you get iran out of lebanon, yemen, iraq, bahrain, and morocco, or you will have festering wars - and probably a major one - in the near term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And realistically how would you do that without:
> 
> Turning the Iranian civilian population against the west.
> Turning much of the Muslim world against the US.
> Likely turning much of the Western world against the US.
> Further destabilizing the ME to the point where radical groups like IS gain a foothold in even more territory.
> What is worse - Iran or IS/similar groups?
> 
> Jesus that is just nuts!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The muslim world is 85% sunni, do you think they would actually be against an attack on iran?*  You need to get out of your florida condo, and see the rest of the world.  I come from a muslim country, and can guarantee you that the sunnis would be cheering in the streets - they fucking hate persia.
Click to expand...


Yes.  Because Sunni or Shia - it would be seen as a foreign attack on Muslims.

Didn't we think the Iraqi's would be cheering in the streets too?


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Agree - *it's not perfectly effective* - yet no one presents viable alternatives.  What do you do when you're faced with a set of bad alternatives?  What would you do with NK?  Attack it?  And set loose a war on the border of SK and nuclear powered China who would be faced with millions of NK refugees?  The world is interconnected and actions have profound and often unrealized consequences - like the invasion of Iraq.



I find it interesting that the same liberals who push so hard for the disarming of citizens in the US, taking away gun rights, while refusing to accept the concept of MAD on a personal level, which has been proven to show reductions in the crime rate - are the same who are so willing to allow rogue nations like iran to possess nuclear weapons, and embrace the notion of MAD on a global scale.  Ahhh, the liberal hypocrisy...


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Yes.  Because Sunni or Shia - it would be seen as a foreign attack on Muslims.



No it wouldn't, you are uninformed when it comes to muslims.



> Didn't we think the Iraqi's would be cheering in the streets too?



They did:

Iraqis topple statue to celebrate end of Saddam s rule

It wasn't until the iranians starting pushing the shia militias to start fomenting a civil war did things fall apart in iraq.  Had we taken iran out first, iraq would have been a far easier issue.


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.  Because Sunni or Shia - it would be seen as a foreign attack on Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it wouldn't, you are uninformed when it comes to muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't we think the Iraqi's would be cheering in the streets too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They did:
> 
> Iraqis topple statue to celebrate end of Saddam s rule
> 
> It wasn't until the iranians starting pushing the shia militias to start fomenting a civil war did things fall apart in iraq.  Had we taken iran out first, iraq would have been a far easier issue.
Click to expand...


You just can't get enough war.  The disaster of Iraq taught you nothing.


----------



## ChrisL

Coyote said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
Click to expand...


That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam.  Do you understand that?  These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel.  That is their goal.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Rhod 10964095 





rhodescholar said:


> You stupid fucking idiot asshole, do you have any idea how many american soldiers those fucking bastard iranians injured or killed in iraq?



How many? Do you have any data to support your claim. The Badr Army (trained in Iran) followed American tanks with their armored units into Baghdad in 2003. Bush brought the political leader of the militia also from exile in Tehran into the White House to hold hands with him in a photo OP

You may have missed this:



NotfooledbyW said:


> *President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper



The point being the Badr Brigades from Iran fought with our troops against the Baathist Sunni insurgents and against the Sadrist (purely Iraqi) Shiite militia known as the Mehdi Army under the leadership of Muqtada al Sadr.

It was the Iraq militia (Mehdi Army) that fought against the US occupation not for Iran but as Shiite Iraq nationalists. That is why they also fight Shiite against Shiite for a while in Bush's fiasco invasion.

So what are you basing your claim on calling anyone a "stupid fucking idiot asshole" for not having  "any idea how many american soldiers those fucking bastard iranians injured or killed in iraq?"  Your question appears to be based upon pure ignorance since it doesn't make much sense.

Do you base anything you write on solid reasoning based upon solid facts and recent history over the past fourteen years?


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
Click to expand...


Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil, but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  They are not being threatened by ISIS.  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.


----------



## ChrisL

Brain357 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was iran who created ISIS, and has fomented the environment by oppressing sunnis across the mideast that has stoked the flames of support for it.  Had iran not armed and drove shia militias in iraq to attack sunnis, had iran not created hezbollah to repress sunnis in lebanon, had iran not helped assad mass slaughter 250K sunnis in syria, there would be no groundswell of support for ISIS.
> 
> ISIS' issue is that its leadership is fucking stupid, had they just focused on targeting shia militias and even better, iran itself, then the whole planet of sane humans, including myself would have enthusiastically supported them.  But the assholes didn't, so we're left with two abominations, them and iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are all right wingers this confused?  Iran did not create ISIS.  They were created by taking out saddam, and then they got funding from some Sunni nation.  Iran is fighting ISIS.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you just keep repeating the same thing even though I posted a link showing you the connections between Syria, Iran and ISIS.  The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  If they are allies with a specific country (such as Syria) it is due to what they can get out of such relationship.  It isn't because of their kind-hearted and caring nature.  They don't care about Syria or the Syrian people and they WANT chaos.  How many times does this have to be told to you before it sinks in?  

Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.


----------



## ChrisL

Care4all said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL the resident foreign policy IAEA analyst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, at least compared to these idiots.  They don't understand the viewpoints of Iran.  They don't understand that you are supposed to stick by your allies, not appease your enemies.  They have no idea that the US sometimes has to do some unsavory things in the name of world security.  They want to appease the Iranians and are gambling with world security.  They are SOOOO stupid that I cannot even believe it to be honest.  Once Iran has the okay to develop nuclear power, they WILL have a nuclear weapon.  It's pretty much a guarantee.  This is going to cause an arms race in the ME with the Saudis and other ME countries that do not trust Iran.  These are just facts.  Sorry that you liberals cannot handle and do not like facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> an arms race with Iran already stating they are going to use the nuclear weapon to kill Israel.......they are actually saying this....to everyone......without reservation......and the Lefties say...yeah...they don't really mean it.......the left has no ability to understand actual evil......they see good people as bad, and bad people as good....they are f****d in the head....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link to Iran stating they are going to use their nuclear weapons to kill Israel.....  YOU Said they are saying this to EVERYONE so it shouldn't be hard to link up to that with any recent quotes of them stating this....???
> 
> EDIT, ok I read your post above your last post that I initially responded to... and it seems you are Presuming such based on other things....?
Click to expand...


Nobody has to link to such things.  Iran's actions and past speak for themselves.


----------



## Brain357

ChrisL said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is helping iraq fight ISIS. If you are unfamiliar with the facts you shouldnt be here.  What had ISIS done to Saudi?  What has Saudi done to help fight Isis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was iran who created ISIS, and has fomented the environment by oppressing sunnis across the mideast that has stoked the flames of support for it.  Had iran not armed and drove shia militias in iraq to attack sunnis, had iran not created hezbollah to repress sunnis in lebanon, had iran not helped assad mass slaughter 250K sunnis in syria, there would be no groundswell of support for ISIS.
> 
> ISIS' issue is that its leadership is fucking stupid, had they just focused on targeting shia militias and even better, iran itself, then the whole planet of sane humans, including myself would have enthusiastically supported them.  But the assholes didn't, so we're left with two abominations, them and iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are all right wingers this confused?  Iran did not create ISIS.  They were created by taking out saddam, and then they got funding from some Sunni nation.  Iran is fighting ISIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you just keep repeating the same thing even though I posted a link showing you the connections between Syria, Iran and ISIS.  The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  If they are allies with a specific country (such as Syria) it is due to what they can get out of such relationship.  It isn't because of their kind-hearted and caring nature.  They don't care about Syria or the Syrian people and they WANT chaos.  How many times does this have to be told to you before it sinks in?
> 
> Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
Click to expand...


You posted fiction.  The fact is Iran is fighting ISIS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> chrL 10962239
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a couple of polls which state that Americans do not want a nuclear Iran and do not trust Iran
> 
> 
> 
> You keep playing word games with polls that don't support your wild claims and accusations - so here is the record of most of your posts through Post 1887 page 289
Click to expand...



Americans don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and I agree with that.

So this post of yours..... 10956880 





ChrisL said:


> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that *most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama*.


 ..... remains a lie because you cannot come up with a single poll from the past 2 years that refutes this one ..... 10957416  





NotfooledbyW said:


> "a* clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal *with Iran *that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. *This included *61% of Republicans*, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.



So do you think 60% of your fellow Republican are idiots for supporting a deal?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


When HE was a mere fucking retard liberal Dumocrap SENATOR, our present jackass Secretary of State, John f'n Lurch Kerry, went to "negotiate" with the Sandinistas.  I guess HE was severely disloyal?

And that scumbag Ted Kennedy wrote a jackass fucking letter to the Soviet fucking Union when he was a Senator.  I suppose in the lolberal universe they must consider Teddy Glub Glub ("hic") Kennedy a severely disloyal American, too?

By the way, on a larger screen, let's contemplate WHY the Constitution has the SENATE ratify proposed treaties?  Maybe the Senate is supposed to have input?  But Obumbler, the moron, evades the making of treaties (knowing as he does that the Senate may rebuff his efforts).  So, as he does in many things, he tries to do an end run AROUND the strictures of the Constitution.  THEN he pretends to be out_*w*_aged and alarmed that members of the Senate might just insist on preventing him from "negotiating" such idiotic and dangerous thins with the Iranian government as will allow THOSE mutants to have atomic weapons.

The liberal Dumbocraps are such massive hypocrites and they are rancidly stupid. 

Get something straight.  We are NOT obligated to sit idly by and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.

Bravo to the Senators who signed that letter.

Shame on EVERY scumbag Democrap Senator for not having the brains or public spirited decency to TRY to stop Obumbler from injuring us all.


----------



## Statistikhengst

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When HE was a mere fucking retard liberal Dumocrap SENATOR, our present jackass Secretary of State, John f'n Lurch Kerry, went to "negotiate" with the Sandinistas.  I guess HE was severely disloyal?
> 
> And that scumbag Ted Kennedy wrote a jackass fucking letter to the Soviet fucking Union when he was a Senator.  I suppose in the lolberal universe they must consider Teddy Glub Glub ("hic") Kennedy a severely disloyal American, too?
> 
> By the way, on a larger screen, let's contemplate WHY the Constitution has the SENATE ratify proposed treaties?  Maybe the Senate is supposed to have input?  But Obumbler, the moron, evades the making of treaties (knowing as he does that the Senate may rebuff his efforts).  So, as he does in many things, he tries to do an end run AROUND the strictures of the Constitution.  THEN he pretends to be out_*w*_aged and alarmed that members of the Senate might just insist on preventing him from "negotiating" such idiotic and dangerous thins with the Iranian government as will allow THOSE mutants to have atomic weapons.
> 
> The liberal Dumbocraps are such massive hypocrites and they are rancidly stupid.
> 
> Get something straight.  We are NOT obligated to sit idly by and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.
> 
> Bravo to the Senators who signed that letter.
> 
> Shame on EVERY scumbag Democrap Senator for not having the brains or public spirited decency to TRY to stop Obumbler from injuring us all.
Click to expand...


You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When HE was a mere fucking retard liberal Dumocrap SENATOR, our present jackass Secretary of State, John f'n Lurch Kerry, went to "negotiate" with the Sandinistas.  I guess HE was severely disloyal?
> 
> And that scumbag Ted Kennedy wrote a jackass fucking letter to the Soviet fucking Union when he was a Senator.  I suppose in the lolberal universe they must consider Teddy Glub Glub ("hic") Kennedy a severely disloyal American, too?
> 
> By the way, on a larger screen, let's contemplate WHY the Constitution has the SENATE ratify proposed treaties?  Maybe the Senate is supposed to have input?  But Obumbler, the moron, evades the making of treaties (knowing as he does that the Senate may rebuff his efforts).  So, as he does in many things, he tries to do an end run AROUND the strictures of the Constitution.  THEN he pretends to be out_*w*_aged and alarmed that members of the Senate might just insist on preventing him from "negotiating" such idiotic and dangerous thins with the Iranian government as will allow THOSE mutants to have atomic weapons.
> 
> The liberal Dumbocraps are such massive hypocrites and they are rancidly stupid.
> 
> Get something straight.  We are NOT obligated to sit idly by and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.
> 
> Bravo to the Senators who signed that letter.
> 
> Shame on EVERY scumbag Democrap Senator for not having the brains or public spirited decency to TRY to stop Obumbler from injuring us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....
Click to expand...


You really need to work on buying a clue.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Brain357 said:


> ou posted fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting ISIS.



That's two of ChrisL's posted fictions in a row.

And this one posted she was ready to declare herself a winner on this thread when she stumbled and fell down at the starting line.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Silly mindless drone hack libs pretend to be all aghast that Senators might write to another nation when it is the Executive Branch that is supposed to speak for America in the realm of foreign affairs.

Sound the alarms!

Except, they conveniently forget that it's "wrong" when THEY are the ones doing it.

And they also "forget" that our Constitution GIVES input into these matters to the Senate half of the legislative branch. 

And when these things are pointed out to them, they tend to splutter.

Of course, it's hard to tell the difference from the shit they say before hand.


----------



## nat4900

Just a word to state that I'm REALLY impressed with the sagacious posts of *JoeB* and *Coyote* and several others......
However, please bear in mind that there is NO arguing with *bumpintheroadscholar*,,,she/he is the perpetual war-mongering idiot who tries to be an arm-chair warrior and cannot mask the bigotry and possibly the racism that her/his ilk has toward Obama, flirting with almost seditious statement to thwart any semblance of achievements by this administration.


----------



## Statistikhengst

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When HE was a mere fucking retard liberal Dumocrap SENATOR, our present jackass Secretary of State, John f'n Lurch Kerry, went to "negotiate" with the Sandinistas.  I guess HE was severely disloyal?
> 
> And that scumbag Ted Kennedy wrote a jackass fucking letter to the Soviet fucking Union when he was a Senator.  I suppose in the lolberal universe they must consider Teddy Glub Glub ("hic") Kennedy a severely disloyal American, too?
> 
> By the way, on a larger screen, let's contemplate WHY the Constitution has the SENATE ratify proposed treaties?  Maybe the Senate is supposed to have input?  But Obumbler, the moron, evades the making of treaties (knowing as he does that the Senate may rebuff his efforts).  So, as he does in many things, he tries to do an end run AROUND the strictures of the Constitution.  THEN he pretends to be out_*w*_aged and alarmed that members of the Senate might just insist on preventing him from "negotiating" such idiotic and dangerous thins with the Iranian government as will allow THOSE mutants to have atomic weapons.
> 
> The liberal Dumbocraps are such massive hypocrites and they are rancidly stupid.
> 
> Get something straight.  We are NOT obligated to sit idly by and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.
> 
> Bravo to the Senators who signed that letter.
> 
> Shame on EVERY scumbag Democrap Senator for not having the brains or public spirited decency to TRY to stop Obumbler from injuring us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work on buying a clue.
Click to expand...



As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...


----------



## Statistikhengst

IlarMeilyr said:


> Silly mindless drone hack libs pretend to be all aghast that Senators might write to another nation when it is the Executive Branch that is supposed to speak for America in the realm of foreign affairs.
> 
> Sound the alarms!
> 
> Except, they conveniently forget that it's "wrong" when THEY are the ones doing it.
> 
> And they also "forget" that our Constitution GIVES input into these matters to the Senate half of the legislative branch.
> 
> And when these things are pointed out to them, they tend to splutter.
> 
> Of course, it's hard to tell the difference from the shit they say before hand.




You obviously have no grasp on the political history of the USA.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly mindless drone hack libs pretend to be all aghast that Senators might write to another nation when it is the Executive Branch that is supposed to speak for America in the realm of foreign affairs.
> 
> Sound the alarms!
> 
> Except, they conveniently forget that it's "wrong" when THEY are the ones doing it.
> 
> And they also "forget" that our Constitution GIVES input into these matters to the Senate half of the legislative branch.
> 
> And when these things are pointed out to them, they tend to splutter.
> 
> Of course, it's hard to tell the difference from the shit they say before hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have no grasp on the political history of the USA.
Click to expand...

I am the one of the two of us who actually does.

How ironic that a no nothing like you would make the contrary claim.

Please thrill us with your acumen.  Tell us why it was ok when Sen. Kerry went to Nicaragua to engage in some NON State Department approved negotiations.

This will be fun.


----------



## Statistikhengst

rhodescholar said:


> They did:
> 
> Iraqis topple statue to celebrate end of Saddam s rule
> 
> It wasn't until the iranians starting pushing the shia militias to start fomenting a civil war did things fall apart in iraq.  *Had we taken iran out first,* iraq would have been a far easier issue.



Will the neocon warmongering never end?

Does any other sane person here see a problem with that sentence?

Jesus H. Fucking Christ, what in the fuck is wrong with you people?


----------



## Statistikhengst

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly mindless drone hack libs pretend to be all aghast that Senators might write to another nation when it is the Executive Branch that is supposed to speak for America in the realm of foreign affairs.
> 
> Sound the alarms!
> 
> Except, they conveniently forget that it's "wrong" when THEY are the ones doing it.
> 
> And they also "forget" that our Constitution GIVES input into these matters to the Senate half of the legislative branch.
> 
> And when these things are pointed out to them, they tend to splutter.
> 
> Of course, it's hard to tell the difference from the shit they say before hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have no grasp on the political history of the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am the one of the two of us who actually does.
> 
> How ironic that a no nothing like you would make the contrary claim.
> 
> Please thrill us with your acumen.  Tell us why it was ok when Sen. Kerry went to Nicaragua to engage in some NON State Department approved negotiations.
> 
> This will be fun.
Click to expand...



Read the State Department regulations and inform yourself, idiot.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When HE was a mere fucking retard liberal Dumocrap SENATOR, our present jackass Secretary of State, John f'n Lurch Kerry, went to "negotiate" with the Sandinistas.  I guess HE was severely disloyal?
> 
> And that scumbag Ted Kennedy wrote a jackass fucking letter to the Soviet fucking Union when he was a Senator.  I suppose in the lolberal universe they must consider Teddy Glub Glub ("hic") Kennedy a severely disloyal American, too?
> 
> By the way, on a larger screen, let's contemplate WHY the Constitution has the SENATE ratify proposed treaties?  Maybe the Senate is supposed to have input?  But Obumbler, the moron, evades the making of treaties (knowing as he does that the Senate may rebuff his efforts).  So, as he does in many things, he tries to do an end run AROUND the strictures of the Constitution.  THEN he pretends to be out_*w*_aged and alarmed that members of the Senate might just insist on preventing him from "negotiating" such idiotic and dangerous thins with the Iranian government as will allow THOSE mutants to have atomic weapons.
> 
> The liberal Dumbocraps are such massive hypocrites and they are rancidly stupid.
> 
> Get something straight.  We are NOT obligated to sit idly by and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.
> 
> Bravo to the Senators who signed that letter.
> 
> Shame on EVERY scumbag Democrap Senator for not having the brains or public spirited decency to TRY to stop Obumbler from injuring us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work on buying a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
Click to expand...


I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).

And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.

The beam in your eye must be heavy.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Silly mindless drone hack libs pretend to be all aghast that Senators might write to another nation when it is the Executive Branch that is supposed to speak for America in the realm of foreign affairs.
> 
> Sound the alarms!
> 
> Except, they conveniently forget that it's "wrong" when THEY are the ones doing it.
> 
> And they also "forget" that our Constitution GIVES input into these matters to the Senate half of the legislative branch.
> 
> And when these things are pointed out to them, they tend to splutter.
> 
> Of course, it's hard to tell the difference from the shit they say before hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously have no grasp on the political history of the USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am the one of the two of us who actually does.
> 
> How ironic that a no nothing like you would make the contrary claim.
> 
> Please thrill us with your acumen.  Tell us why it was ok when Sen. Kerry went to Nicaragua to engage in some NON State Department approved negotiations.
> 
> This will be fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Read the State Department regulations and inform yourself, idiot.
Click to expand...


A bullshit answer from the blowhard no nothing you have proved yourself to be.

Are you NOW pretending that the State Department "regulations" were something that Sen. Kerry complied with, you twit?

Damn.  You are funnier than usual when you are utterly flummoxed.


----------



## Statistikhengst

NotfooledbyW said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ou posted fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's two of ChrisL's posted fictions in a row.
> 
> And thus one posted she was ready to declare herself a winner on this thread when she stumbled and fell down at the starting line.
Click to expand...



A very common right wing technique for snapping defeat out of the jaws of victory and then dancing through the meadows of unicornland.


----------



## Statistikhengst

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When HE was a mere fucking retard liberal Dumocrap SENATOR, our present jackass Secretary of State, John f'n Lurch Kerry, went to "negotiate" with the Sandinistas.  I guess HE was severely disloyal?
> 
> And that scumbag Ted Kennedy wrote a jackass fucking letter to the Soviet fucking Union when he was a Senator.  I suppose in the lolberal universe they must consider Teddy Glub Glub ("hic") Kennedy a severely disloyal American, too?
> 
> By the way, on a larger screen, let's contemplate WHY the Constitution has the SENATE ratify proposed treaties?  Maybe the Senate is supposed to have input?  But Obumbler, the moron, evades the making of treaties (knowing as he does that the Senate may rebuff his efforts).  So, as he does in many things, he tries to do an end run AROUND the strictures of the Constitution.  THEN he pretends to be out_*w*_aged and alarmed that members of the Senate might just insist on preventing him from "negotiating" such idiotic and dangerous thins with the Iranian government as will allow THOSE mutants to have atomic weapons.
> 
> The liberal Dumbocraps are such massive hypocrites and they are rancidly stupid.
> 
> Get something straight.  We are NOT obligated to sit idly by and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.
> 
> Bravo to the Senators who signed that letter.
> 
> Shame on EVERY scumbag Democrap Senator for not having the brains or public spirited decency to TRY to stop Obumbler from injuring us all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work on buying a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
Click to expand...



No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When HE was a mere fucking retard liberal Dumocrap SENATOR, our present jackass Secretary of State, John f'n Lurch Kerry, went to "negotiate" with the Sandinistas.  I guess HE was severely disloyal?
> 
> And that scumbag Ted Kennedy wrote a jackass fucking letter to the Soviet fucking Union when he was a Senator.  I suppose in the lolberal universe they must consider Teddy Glub Glub ("hic") Kennedy a severely disloyal American, too?
> 
> By the way, on a larger screen, let's contemplate WHY the Constitution has the SENATE ratify proposed treaties?  Maybe the Senate is supposed to have input?  But Obumbler, the moron, evades the making of treaties (knowing as he does that the Senate may rebuff his efforts).  So, as he does in many things, he tries to do an end run AROUND the strictures of the Constitution.  THEN he pretends to be out_*w*_aged and alarmed that members of the Senate might just insist on preventing him from "negotiating" such idiotic and dangerous thins with the Iranian government as will allow THOSE mutants to have atomic weapons.
> 
> The liberal Dumbocraps are such massive hypocrites and they are rancidly stupid.
> 
> Get something straight.  We are NOT obligated to sit idly by and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.
> 
> Bravo to the Senators who signed that letter.
> 
> Shame on EVERY scumbag Democrap Senator for not having the brains or public spirited decency to TRY to stop Obumbler from injuring us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work on buying a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
Click to expand...


Silly mindless you.  You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.  

First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words.  You need to try making a point with a little snap.

Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.  

Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way.  That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so.  But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got. 

There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way.  Don't be "mad," kid.  It's really ok that the Senators intervened.   Really.  It is.


----------



## Rambunctious

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> When HE was a mere fucking retard liberal Dumocrap SENATOR, our present jackass Secretary of State, John f'n Lurch Kerry, went to "negotiate" with the Sandinistas.  I guess HE was severely disloyal?
> 
> And that scumbag Ted Kennedy wrote a jackass fucking letter to the Soviet fucking Union when he was a Senator.  I suppose in the lolberal universe they must consider Teddy Glub Glub ("hic") Kennedy a severely disloyal American, too?
> 
> By the way, on a larger screen, let's contemplate WHY the Constitution has the SENATE ratify proposed treaties?  Maybe the Senate is supposed to have input?  But Obumbler, the moron, evades the making of treaties (knowing as he does that the Senate may rebuff his efforts).  So, as he does in many things, he tries to do an end run AROUND the strictures of the Constitution.  THEN he pretends to be out_*w*_aged and alarmed that members of the Senate might just insist on preventing him from "negotiating" such idiotic and dangerous thins with the Iranian government as will allow THOSE mutants to have atomic weapons.
> 
> The liberal Dumbocraps are such massive hypocrites and they are rancidly stupid.
> 
> Get something straight.  We are NOT obligated to sit idly by and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.
> 
> Bravo to the Senators who signed that letter.
> 
> Shame on EVERY scumbag Democrap Senator for not having the brains or public spirited decency to TRY to stop Obumbler from injuring us all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really need to work on buying a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
Click to expand...

Dude! Take a pill...what's got your goat? Is it the fact that the Democunts have no candidate to run? HAHAHAHeeheeheehahahaheeeeweha!


----------



## nat4900

Once Israel (through, I believe, the surreptitious help from South Africa) managed to amass 200 nukes, it was just a matter of time that another ME country, with the means and treasury, would pursue the same course.

We may be able (regardless of the whining right wingers) to postpone Iran's nuclear ambitions, but we will have to come to terms that unless Israel disarms its nukes, Iran will also want such destructive weaponry.


----------



## Brain357

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to work on buying a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly mindless you.  You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.
> 
> First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words.  You need to try making a point with a little snap.
> 
> Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.
> 
> Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way.  That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so.  But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.
> 
> There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way.  Don't be "mad," kid.  It's really ok that the Senators intervened.   Really.  It is.
Click to expand...


There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran.  It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations.  It makes us look weak and divided to the world.  Putin loved it I'm sure.  It lowered our standing with the rest of the world.  Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them?  All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.


----------



## Statistikhengst

IlarMeilyr said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to work for the 2016 GOP presidential campaign....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to work on buying a clue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly mindless you.  You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.
> 
> First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words.  You need to try making a point with a little snap.
> 
> Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.
> 
> Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way.  That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so.  But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.
> 
> There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way.  Don't be "mad," kid.  It's really ok that the Senators intervened.   Really.  It is.
Click to expand...



So, you still have not read the US Senate protocols, eh?

This has never before happened in our history and you, welcher, are the last person in the world to be accusing someone of being a loyalist. So, instead of trying to relativize everything or attack the messenger, try actually reading the facts.

FACT: 47 Republican Senators committed a treasonous act by interfering in the foreign policy negotiations of the sitting president. This does not fall under the rubrik of "advise and consent". This is treason.

Face it, after Boehner's stupidity a week before, the GOP is really having two difficult weeks and proving that it is incapable of governing.


----------



## Brain357

Those who think this is a bad agreement should post the details of the agreement.  Then we can all try to understand your thoughts.  I'm sure you all know exactly what is in the agreement or you wouldn't have such strong feelings.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Brain357 said:


> Those who think this is a bad agreement should post the details of the agreement.  Then we can all try to understand your thoughts.  I'm sure you all know exactly what is in the agreement or you wouldn't have such strong feelings.




BINGO.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

IM 10965326 





IlarMeilyr said:


> Get something straight. We are *NOT obligated* to *sit idly by *and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.



First of all the P5+1 deal is not endangering any of you fear-mongered cowards that rejects diplomacy and favors sending others to die for your lust for ever expanded war after war.

The Stupid Republican Senators who think the US rules the entire world  miss a very glaring fact - they don't and neither does the POTUS.

And they have thankfully forced the UNSC to act to protect the world from Republican Senators and also ( heaven forbid ) if a warmonger right wing POTUS would take the Oval Office in 2017.

You are officially *sitting idly by *on P5+1 forevermore if Iran signs a treaty and abides strictly to it.


NF 10956845 





NotfooledbyW said:


> . The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> 
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
Click to expand...


We actually can thank the letter for making a potential international deal that lifts sanction absolutely Republican sabotage proof by locking them up in a padded cell where they can't hurt themselves or anybody else. Tommy Cotton didn't think this through and 46 other dopes jumped right off the cliff with him. They thought they were messin' up Obama.


----------



## Lakhota

Brain357 said:


> Those who think this is a bad agreement should post the details of the agreement.  Then we can all try to understand your thoughts.  I'm sure you all know exactly what is in the agreement or you wouldn't have such strong feelings.



Thank you!  Yes, we'd all love to see that "agreement"...


----------



## Lakhota

Bye bye Bibi...


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lakhota said:


> Bye bye Bibi...


Not so fast. Wait until the prelims come in. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## nat4900

Brain357 said:


> Those who think this is a bad agreement should post the details of the agreement.  Then we can all try to understand your thoughts.  I'm sure you all know exactly what is in the agreement or you wouldn't have such strong feelings.



They've heard all they need to know about the agreement from FOX...and in their bigoted world, that is ALL they need to know...Such is the flagrant stupidity of right wingers.

Thank you for posting some sanity.


----------



## Dot Com

Raygun CrusaderFrank


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> Raygun CrusaderFrank




And so RWNJ treachery runs full-cycle.


----------



## Billo_Really

rhodescholar said:


> As I pointed out, iran is fomenting wars across the mideast, is running terrorist proxies in many other countries, and is despised by the majority sunni populations who will not tolerate living under an iranian jackboot forever.  Either you get iran out of lebanon, yemen, iraq, bahrain, and morocco, or you will have festering wars - and probably a major one - in the near term.


Fuck you, asshole, Iran is not doing any of that shit.

This is just like the run-up to the Iraq war.  War mongering pieces of shit like you, are ramping up all the bullshit to start another unnecessary war. 

Go fuck yourself, liar!


----------



## Dot Com

Iran Love Letter by Political Cartoonist Steve Sack


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Because they are polls.  Americans do not approve of a nuclear Iran, nor do they trust Iran.  It is really that simple.  Why on earth WOULD they?  Can you answer that question?
> 
> Iran


First off, a nuclear Iran is none of our fucking business.  And secondly, any country smart enough to build "the bomb", is also smart enough to know that if they use that "bomb", their country will glow in the dark.


----------



## Dot Com

Iran Tom Cotton and the Bizarre History of the Logan Act - Josh Zeitz - POLITICO Magazine


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


>




Molto fantastico!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Statistikhengst said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ou posted fiction. The fact is Iran is fighting ISIS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's two of ChrisL's posted fictions in a row.
> 
> And thus one posted she was ready to declare herself a winner on this thread when she stumbled and fell down at the starting line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A very common right wing technique for snapping defeat out of the jaws of victory and then dancing through the meadows of unicornland.
Click to expand...


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Lakhota




----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.




I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:

Afghanistan 2009
(A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
(B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.

Didn't happen.

Iraq; 2011:
Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003 invasion that saved the world from Saddam's WMD caused extreme violence and in Iraq then by 2008 the Bush surge that Obama opposed reduced that violence 80% from 2006 levels.

Iraq 2014
Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President

Didn't happen

Egypt Arab Spring:
Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.

Didn't happen

Syria:
Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .

Didn't happen

Lybia:
About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.

"Please proceed Governor"

So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault? 

QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 10965078, member: 50165"]The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.[/QUOTE]

Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.


----------



## Coyote

ChrisL said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date.  Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam.  Do you understand that?  These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel.  That is their goal.
Click to expand...


We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not.  They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.


----------



## Coyote

ChrisL said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
Click to expand...



Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Coyote said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam.  Do you understand that?  These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel.  That is their goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not.  They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

We saw a similar ridiculous perception of the Soviets during the Cold War.

It's a troubling Orwellian aspect of most conservatives, their need for some sort of 'malevolent enemy,' be it 'communism' a generation ago or Iran today.


----------



## Lakhota

Iran isn't fighting ISIS to help America - and our government knows that.  However, looking at it from Iran's point of view - that's their turf and they're trying to protect it - much like we would do in their shoes.  Ancient mentality and modern weapons don't mix well.


----------



## Statistikhengst

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam.  Do you understand that?  These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel.  That is their goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not.  They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> We saw a similar ridiculous perception of the Soviets during the Cold War.
> 
> It's a troubling Orwellian aspect of most conservatives, their need for some sort of 'malevolent enemy,' be it 'communism' a generation ago or Iran today.
Click to expand...



Just read an interesting tweet from a certain Peter W. Singer:

"There is an entire generation of neocons that no nothing other than how to write opeds calling for war on countries beginning with I."

Ain't that about right...


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> QUOTE="ChrisL, post: 10965078, member: 50165"]The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
Click to expand...


Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.[/QUOTE]

You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.

And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.


----------



## Faun

rhodescholar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the FSA, whom you attributed to killing "thousands of Americans?"

*Faun: *_Then there's the fact that Iran has neither attacked us nor threatened to._

*rhodescholar: *_You stupid fucking idiot asshole, do you have any idea how many american soldiers those fucking bastard iranians injured or killed in iraq? THOUSANDS._

*Faun: *_The vast majority of insurgents were Iraqi._

*rhodescholar: *_What are you talking about? The FSA was comprised of sunnis who defected from the syrian army._

*Faun: *_Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011._​ 
The FSA aside, since there was no such group when we invaded Iraq, again -- the vast majority of the insurgents were Iraqi. And while the rest came from many of the other countries in the region, they in no way represented the nations they came from.

It's lunacy to go to war with Iran because some of their citizens joined up to fight in a sectarian war between Sunni's and Shiite's that America was in the middle of.


----------



## ChrisL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam.  Do you understand that?  These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel.  That is their goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not.  They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> We saw a similar ridiculous perception of the Soviets during the Cold War.
> 
> It's a troubling Orwellian aspect of most conservatives, their need for some sort of 'malevolent enemy,' be it 'communism' a generation ago or Iran today.
Click to expand...


Well, I'm not conservative.  So what now?


----------



## ChrisL

Coyote said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.
Click to expand...


Have you read any of the links I provided?  Probably not.  Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan.  Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that.  I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!  

Iran has connections with the Syria civil war.  Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.  

How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse?  You don't think so?  Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM.  So are they lying?


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
Click to expand...

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.


----------



## ChrisL

Coyote said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you would have us start another world war?  And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is.  By the way, you didn't answer my question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam.  Do you understand that?  These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel.  That is their goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not.  They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.
Click to expand...


There is no evidence?  It is what THEY say!!  

The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today

First of all, bear in mind that Iran is a fervently Shiite Islamic Republic, with a 98 percent Muslim population and 89 percent of those Muslims identifying as Shiite, according to the CIA World Factbook. Twelver Shiism is the largest branch of Shiite Islam, with about 85 percent of Shiite adhering to the belief in the 12th imam. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, father of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Now, what does this mean? A series of imams was appointed to carry on the Prophet Muhammad's message, they believe, ranking above all other prophets except for Muhammad himself. The 12th, Muhammad al-Mahdi, is believed by these Shiites to have been born in present-day Iraq in 869 and never to have died, only gone into hiding. Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.

The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.

The Twelver beliefs have raised concern in conjunction with Iran's steeped interest in furiously pressing forward with its nuclear program, combined with threats against Israel and the West. Critics of the Islamic Republic allege that Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader would even go so far as to hasten a nuclear showdown and cataclysmic strike -- perhaps an attack on Israel and inevitable retaliation -- to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam. *Ahmadinejad has even called for the reappearance of the 12th Imam from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly. During his speeches within Iran, Ahmadinejad has said that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.*


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read any of the links I provided?  Probably not.  Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan.  Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that.  I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!
> 
> Iran has connections with the Syria civil war.  Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.
> 
> How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse?  You don't think so?  Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM.  So are they lying?
Click to expand...

You mean those "countrymen" who screwed us over? Why on Earth should anyone trust them?


----------



## ChrisL

And, how are they going to "pave the way" for their crazy 12th Imam?  By complete destruction in the ME.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
Click to expand...


What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!


----------



## boedicca

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
Click to expand...



Nonsense.  The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry.   Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
Click to expand...

There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.
Click to expand...


They probably wouldn't have the capabilities to strike at the United States.  Instead they will hit Israel, Iraq, and all of the other countries that surround them.  You are aware that none of the Arab countries like Iran?  It's because Iranians are Persians.  WTF that matters, I don't have any clue, but that's a fact.  Iran hates everyone and everyone hates Iran.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.
Click to expand...


There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions.  We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well.  You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year?  Yes, there are options.


----------



## ChrisL

boedicca said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry.   Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.
Click to expand...


Ha!  Great minds think alike!


----------



## ChrisL

I'm telling you, I am grateful for those senators for writing that letter.  I hope they fight Obama ALL THE WAY on this.


----------



## Lakhota

Any nation with the knowledge to build nuclear weapons also knows how dangerous they are - even nuts like North Korea.  So far, only one nation has ever fired nukes at another nation.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because they are polls.  Americans do not approve of a nuclear Iran, nor do they trust Iran.  It is really that simple.  Why on earth WOULD they?  Can you answer that question?
> 
> Iran
> 
> 
> 
> First off, a nuclear Iran is none of our fucking business.  And secondly, any country smart enough to build "the bomb", is also smart enough to know that if they use that "bomb", their country will glow in the dark.
Click to expand...


You just aren't very educated on the religious belief system of the Iranians.  They are Islamic extremists in every sense of the word.


----------



## ChrisL

These are people who kill themselves just to kill other people, and you people think they are concerned . . . about anything?


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I pointed out, iran is fomenting wars across the mideast, is running terrorist proxies in many other countries, and is despised by the majority sunni populations who will not tolerate living under an iranian jackboot forever.  Either you get iran out of lebanon, yemen, iraq, bahrain, and morocco, or you will have festering wars - and probably a major one - in the near term.
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you, asshole, Iran is not doing any of that shit.
> 
> This is just like the run-up to the Iraq war.  War mongering pieces of shit like you, are ramping up all the bullshit to start another unnecessary war.
> 
> Go fuck yourself, liar!
Click to expand...


You're just a stupid idiot apparently with your stupid fat head buried in the sand.  Keep it there.  It's too ugly to look at.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Well, this is proving to be a very active thread!

Nice!

So, more than 2,100 postings since I wrote the OP, time for my personal opinion. The OP is now simply historical fact.

Putting aside that the 47 GOP Senators have fucked up, which is no new surprise, and putting aside Netanyahu's scare tactics in order to get re-elected, Iran, on the other side is not innocent in all of this. It never has been. Shariah law sucks.

Indeed, Ahmed Achmedinijhad spoke quite openly of wiping Israel off the map and indeed, Iran has been sponsoring terrorist groups, including His'ballah and also quite possible ISIS. Righties are not off the mark by making sure to remind us of these facts.

Whether or not you take the tack that US politics has been fucking up in Iran since the 1950s is in a way beside the point, for a decision to utterly hate a nation goes way beyond any US-Iran politics, and Iran has an irrational hate of Israel and of Jews. You aren't going to change that hate with any treaty.

So, I don't want Iran to ever get the bomb, either. Anyone who is arguing that Iran should also have access to the bomb is just crazy.

Which is why, if a treaty delays Iran, then all the better.

Obama is probably fighting for the best of all bad options. There are no really good options in all of this, as long as hate is at the top of the list for a number of countries, most especially Iran. What Righties want to go with either leads to the complete annihilation of Iran, or will lead to Iran getting the bomb more quickly than they realize.

What I also witness are a number of self-professed Conservatives, also armchair coaches, who think they know international politics better than the sitting POTUS.  And they don't even see that those 47 Senators really, really fucked up. They are cheering for treachery as if treachery is normal. That is just plain old bizarre.

At the same time, some extreme Lefties want to make Iran innocent and the victim. It is not, and it is not. That's just as bizarre.

Are there any adults left out there?


----------



## Coyote

ChrisL said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read any of the links I provided?  Probably not.  Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan.  Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that.  *I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!*
Click to expand...


Or that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.

I don't "trust them".  But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests.  Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.

As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table.  But war should *never ever be the first or even second or third option. * The "horrible conservatives" *don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance* and from the beginning that has been apparent.  The want yet another Mid East war.  Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?



> Iran has connections with the Syria civil war.  Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.



Really now?  Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours).  And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - *so do we*. 

Taking the side of ISIS?  No evidence to support that.



> How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse?  You don't think so?  Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM.  So are they lying?



According to WHO?

Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today

Ahmademonjob is not in power.  He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power.  It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.


----------



## Faun

boedicca said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry.   Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.
Click to expand...

There have been sanctions on Iran for 35 years so far. How many more years until that revolution happens? What are the chances they develop a nuke before then?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Faun 10966335 





Faun said:


> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when



Iran is more likely but not all that likely to get a bomb if there is no deal. The reason is the 'breakout period of one year' that is being negotiated.

If you don't know what that is I'll let Obama explains it.



> .The American president said the best way to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb is not through additional sanctions or a military option - but through diplomacy.
> 
> “What we've said from the start is by organizing a strong sanctions regime, what we can do is bring Iran to the table," he said. "And by bringing Iran to the table, force them to have a serious negotiation in which we are able to see exactly what's going on inside of Iran.”
> 
> The president added that a break-out period of a year - the time Iran would need to make a nuclear weapon, if it decided to do so - would give international monitors a chance to detect any violations, and that Iran could be stopped through military action during that period, if need be.
> 
> Obama said Iran should commit to freezing its nuclear program for at least 10 years in order for a successful deal to be reached, and he noted that the chances of reaching such an agreement were still less than 50 percent.



Obama Iran Must Freeze Sensitive Nuclear Activity for At Least a Decade Embassy of the United States

Key paragraph from the remarks :

"The president added that a break-out period of a year - the time Iran would need to make a nuclear weapon, if it decided to do so - would give international monitors a chance to detect any violations, and that *Iran could be stopped through military action during that period,* if need be.

*stopped through military action *
*
stopped through military action 

stopped through military action 

stopped through military actio*

And with the deal the international community will be "able to see exactly what's going on inside of Iran.” As Obama said, 

Military targeting will be better known with a deal. 

ChrisL has been lying to you that Americans don't agree with making a deal.  She's lying because Obama matches the polls that say Americans want a deal and they want military action if Iran breaks the deal.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions.  We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well.  You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year?  Yes, there are options.
Click to expand...

 How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?


----------



## ChrisL

Coyote said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read any of the links I provided?  Probably not.  Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan.  Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that.  *I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.
> 
> I don't "trust them".  But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests.  Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.
> 
> As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table.  But war should *never ever be the first or even second or third option. * The "horrible conservatives" *don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance* and from the beginning that has been apparent.  The want yet another Mid East war.  Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has connections with the Syria civil war.  Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours).  And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - *so do we*.
> 
> Taking the side of ISIS?  No evidence to support that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse?  You don't think so?  Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM.  So are they lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to WHO?
> 
> Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> Ahmademonjob is not in power.  He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power.  It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.
Click to expand...


I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco.  He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.  

The liberal thought process:  Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb.  Fucking insane.  I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.  

Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs.  He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious?  I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran.  He does NOT.  He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.  

The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam.  Why do you keep asking according to who?  According to the mullahs, that's who.


----------



## Coyote

boedicca said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. * The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry*.   Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.
Click to expand...


Sanctions worked to bring them to the table.  If you continue, at this point, to ratchet them up you risk driving them away any agreement or potential oversight - and building a bomb in secret.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> Faun 10966335
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is more likely but not all that likely to get a bomb if there is no deal. The reason is the 'breakout period of one year' that is being negotiated.
> 
> If you don't know what that is I'll let Obama explains it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .The American president said the best way to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb is not through additional sanctions or a military option - but through diplomacy.
> 
> “What we've said from the start is by organizing a strong sanctions regime, what we can do is bring Iran to the table," he said. "And by bringing Iran to the table, force them to have a serious negotiation in which we are able to see exactly what's going on inside of Iran.”
> 
> The president added that a break-out period of a year - the time Iran would need to make a nuclear weapon, if it decided to do so - would give international monitors a chance to detect any violations, and that Iran could be stopped through military action during that period, if need be.
> 
> Obama said Iran should commit to freezing its nuclear program for at least 10 years in order for a successful deal to be reached, and he noted that the chances of reaching such an agreement were still less than 50 percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama Iran Must Freeze Sensitive Nuclear Activity for At Least a Decade Embassy of the United States
> 
> Key paragraph from the remarks :
> 
> "The president added that a break-out period of a year - the time Iran would need to make a nuclear weapon, if it decided to do so - would give international monitors a chance to detect any violations, and that *Iran could be stopped through military action during that period,* if need be.
> 
> *stopped through military action
> 
> stopped through military action
> 
> stopped through military action
> 
> stopped through military actio*
> 
> And with the deal the international community will be "able to see exactly what's going on inside of Iran.” As Obama said,
> 
> Military targeting will be better known with a deal.
> 
> ChrisL has been lying to you that Americans don't agree with making a deal.  She's lying because Obama matches the polls that say Americans want a deal and they want military action if Iran breaks the deal.
Click to expand...


Uneducated Americans like yourself want a deal because you have no IDEA what you are dealing with.  You are ignorant.  That's all there is to it.  

What is with your repeated sentences in bold?  Is that supposed to make some kind of point?  

Iran would not let inspectors in before, why do you think they would allow such things now?  They will take the materials and stock pile them and hide them.  That is what they've done in the past, and that is what they will do now.  This is the MOST stupid thing Obama and you liberals have ever done.  Once the shit hits the fan, we know exactly WHO is to blame.


----------



## ChrisL

Coyote said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense. * The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry*.   Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions worked to bring them to the table.  If you continue, at this point, to ratchet them up you risk driving them away any agreement or potential oversight - and building a bomb in secret.
Click to expand...


They've already been doing that.  Israeli and American intelligence has said so.


----------



## Statistikhengst

ChrisL said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read any of the links I provided?  Probably not.  Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan.  Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that.  *I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.
> 
> I don't "trust them".  But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests.  Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.
> 
> As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table.  But war should *never ever be the first or even second or third option. * The "horrible conservatives" *don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance* and from the beginning that has been apparent.  The want yet another Mid East war.  Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has connections with the Syria civil war.  Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours).  And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - *so do we*.
> 
> Taking the side of ISIS?  No evidence to support that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse?  You don't think so?  Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM.  So are they lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to WHO?
> 
> Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> Ahmademonjob is not in power.  He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power.  It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco.  He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.
> 
> The liberal thought process:  Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb.  Fucking insane.  I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.
> 
> Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs.  He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious?  I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran.  He does NOT.  He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.
> 
> The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam.  Why do you keep asking according to who?  According to the mullahs, that's who.
Click to expand...



You are clearly completely off your rocker if you think that our President thinks that a nuclear Iran is a good idea.

You have a lot to learn about the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> 
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions.  We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well.  You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year?  Yes, there are options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?
Click to expand...


I've got one word, CHINA.  Do you realize we give China aid money.  We can threaten to cut them off, a kind of sanctioning of our own.


----------



## Coyote

ChrisL said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops?  How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq?  Plenty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read any of the links I provided?  Probably not.  Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan.  Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that.  *I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.
> 
> I don't "trust them".  But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests.  Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.
> 
> As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table.  But war should *never ever be the first or even second or third option. * The "horrible conservatives" *don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance* and from the beginning that has been apparent.  The want yet another Mid East war.  Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has connections with the Syria civil war.  Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours).  And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - *so do we*.
> 
> Taking the side of ISIS?  No evidence to support that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse?  You don't think so?  Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM.  So are they lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to WHO?
> 
> Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> Ahmademonjob is not in power.  He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power.  It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco.  He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.
Click to expand...


He doesn't.



> The liberal thought process:  Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb.  Fucking insane.  I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.



Oh really now.  Do you think it's that simplistic?



> Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs.  He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious?  I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran.  He does NOT.  He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.



Ahmademonjob was a nut, and he did not follow directions too well, which is why he is no longer president.  I already said the president in Iran doesn't hold much power - or did you miss that?  He holds some power, but  not as much as our president.



> The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam.  Why do you keep asking according to who?  According to the mullahs, that's who.



They believe in the 12th Imam.  Just like Christians believe in the apocolypse.  That doesn't mean they are in a hurry to end the world.


----------



## ChrisL

Statistikhengst said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read any of the links I provided?  Probably not.  Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan.  Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that.  *I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.
> 
> I don't "trust them".  But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests.  Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.
> 
> As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table.  But war should *never ever be the first or even second or third option. * The "horrible conservatives" *don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance* and from the beginning that has been apparent.  The want yet another Mid East war.  Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has connections with the Syria civil war.  Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours).  And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - *so do we*.
> 
> Taking the side of ISIS?  No evidence to support that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse?  You don't think so?  Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM.  So are they lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to WHO?
> 
> Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> Ahmademonjob is not in power.  He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power.  It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco.  He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.
> 
> The liberal thought process:  Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb.  Fucking insane.  I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.
> 
> Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs.  He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious?  I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran.  He does NOT.  He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.
> 
> The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam.  Why do you keep asking according to who?  According to the mullahs, that's who.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are clearly completely off your rocker if you think that our President thinks that a nuclear Iran is a good idea.
> 
> You have a lot to learn about the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry.
Click to expand...


No, I think you do . . . 

They have the know-how.  All they need is the materials!!  

Nuclear Power Education - Nuclear Weapons Proliferation


----------



## Coyote

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions.  We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well.  You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year?  Yes, there are options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got one word, CHINA.  Do you realize we give China aid money.  We can threaten to cut them off, a kind of sanctioning of our own.
Click to expand...


uh....do you realize how much of our debt China holds?


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> You just can't get enough war.  The disaster of Iraq taught you nothing.



What was it supposed to "teach" me asshole, I was against that war.  I stated at the time, as I do now, that iran was and is the far greater threat.


----------



## Coyote

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> 
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions.  We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well.  You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year?  Yes, there are options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?
Click to expand...


Yes...how well...not many answers out there.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> I'm telling you, I am grateful for those senators for writing that letter.  I hope they fight Obama ALL THE WAY on this.


Too bad they don't fight our enemies with such conviction.


----------



## ChrisL

Coyote said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, I think they want Iraq.  They want to control Iraqi oil, of course!  It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil,* but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same*, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty.  *They are not being threatened by ISIS.*  They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help."  Nobody should want their "help" with anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ulterior motives....sure.  We all do.  However the entire region is threatened by ISIS.  I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives.  There are no innocents in this game.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you read any of the links I provided?  Probably not.  Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan.  Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that.  *I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.
> 
> I don't "trust them".  But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests.  Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.
> 
> As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table.  But war should *never ever be the first or even second or third option. * The "horrible conservatives" *don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance* and from the beginning that has been apparent.  The want yet another Mid East war.  Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran has connections with the Syria civil war.  Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really now?  Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours).  And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - *so do we*.
> 
> Taking the side of ISIS?  No evidence to support that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse?  You don't think so?  Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM.  So are they lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to WHO?
> 
> Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today
> 
> Ahmademonjob is not in power.  He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power.  It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco.  He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal thought process:  Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb.  Fucking insane.  I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really now.  Do you think it's that simplistic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs.  He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious?  I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran.  He does NOT.  He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahmademonjob was a nut, and he did not follow directions too well, which is why he is no longer president.  I already said the president in Iran doesn't hold much power - or did you miss that?  He holds some power, but  not as much as our president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam.  Why do you keep asking according to who?  According to the mullahs, that's who.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They believe in the 12th Imam.  Just like Christians believe in the apocolypse.  That doesn't mean they are in a hurry to end the world.
Click to expand...


You are being incredibly ignorant and naive.  I don't know what else I can say to convince you that you are sooooo wrong.  The mullahs are believers in the 12th disciple.  They believe that in order to pave the way for the 12th Imam, there must be destruction, an apocalyptic scenario.  

Why will do you keep denying this?  You want to believe it isn't true?  Well, I'm sorry, but it is true.  It comes from their own mouths.  Ahmadinejab would have been dead if he went against the mullahs.  NOBODY goes against the mullahs in Iran.  I really don't know what else I can do.  You all will just keep your heads buried in the sand and deny, deny, deny.  

IRANIAN DEFENSE MINISTER WAR WITH ISRAEL MEANS TWELFTH IMAM IS COMING Joel C. Rosenberg s Blog

An apocalyptic, genocidal death cult is in power in Iran. The mullahs in Tehran believe we are living in the end of days and that the way to hasten the coming of their so-called Islamic messiah known as the Twelfth Imam is to annihilate Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it. I’ve been writing and speaking about this for years, trying to help the West understand how a fanatical version of Shia End Times theology is driving Iranian foreign policy. Now we have fresh evidence that this is not fiction; it is all too true.

“For the first time, Iran’s highest-ranking military official has tied the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah to the regime being prepared to go to a war based on ideology,”*notes Reza Kahlili*, the former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer turned spy for the CIA. “‘With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war,’ Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to *Mashregh news*, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards. ‘Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.’ Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.”

Kahlili, as you may recall, is now an American citizen and is the author of a book about his life in the CIA. *Last year, in an article Reza published on his blog and sent out around the world, he renounced Islam and explained that he had become a follower of Jesus Christ*. Reza’s latest article is important and I encourage you to read the full version. You should also watch the *video* at the end of the article that is an excerpt from an Iranian documentary called “The Coming.” It explains how recent geopolitical events are, in the view of Shia eschatology experts, signs that we are living in the last days and that the Twelfth Imam or “Mahdi” is coming to earth at any moment to establish a global Islamic kingdom or “caliphate” to rule the world.


----------



## boedicca

Faun said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....   Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country.  .....  Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry.   Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been sanctions on Iran for 35 years so far. How many more years until that revolution happens? What are the chances they develop a nuke before then?
Click to expand...



Were you in a medically induced coma in 2009, or just spaced out on drugs?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you, I am grateful for those senators for writing that letter.  I hope they fight Obama ALL THE WAY on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they don't fight our enemies with such conviction.
Click to expand...


Iran is our enemy.


----------



## ChrisL

Now, I've provided plenty of links to articles and many valid sources with people in the know about Iran.  I'm done here now because it is up to you whether you want to believe it or not.  Obviously, you all are going to think what you want and deny the ugly truth.  Later!


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> Once Israel (through, I believe, the surreptitious help from South Africa) managed to amass 200 nukes, it was just a matter of time that another ME country, with the means and treasury, would pursue the same course.
> We may be able (regardless of the whining right wingers) to postpone Iran's nuclear ambitions, but we will have to come to terms that unless Israel disarms its nukes, Iran will also want such destructive weaponry.



This is why I ignore most of yours and the other low IQ, moron liberals' posts.

First, it was France and Norway who helped construct Israel's nuclear program, and they achieved it over 50 years ago.  Given that it was half a century ago, if Israel's acquisition of nukes was going to start an arms race, it would have happened long ago.  Try the facts on for a change moron, they might fit.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions.  We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well.  You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year?  Yes, there are options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've got one word, CHINA.  Do you realize we give China aid money.  We can threaten to cut them off, a kind of sanctioning of our own.
Click to expand...

And the connection to NK building nukes despite sanctions ... is ... ?


----------



## Coyote

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm telling you, I am grateful for those senators for writing that letter.  I hope they fight Obama ALL THE WAY on this.
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad they don't fight our enemies with such conviction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran is our enemy.
Click to expand...


What have they done to us?


----------



## orogenicman

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What good is that?  Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke.  They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They probably wouldn't have the capabilities to strike at the United States.  Instead they will hit Israel, Iraq, and all of the other countries that surround them.  You are aware that none of the Arab countries like Iran?  It's because Iranians are Persians.  WTF that matters, I don't have any clue, but that's a fact.  Iran hates everyone and everyone hates Iran.
Click to expand...


Right, and let all that fallout land, among other places downwind, in Iran.  We know it, and so do they.  Syria is an Arab country, and they are Iran's sole ally in the ME.  Iranians speak Farsi, but they are not Persians.  Persia doesn't exist.


----------



## Faun

boedicca said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:
> 
> Afghanistan 2009
> (A)  Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
> (B)  Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.
> 
> Didn't happen.
> 
> Iraq; 2011:
> Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.
> 
> Iraq 2014
> Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Egypt Arab Spring:
> Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters.  Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi  the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Syria:
> Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW.  Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW.  ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them.    All Obama's fault  - the IS is established.  These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .
> 
> Didn't happen
> 
> Lybia:
> About the same as Syria except for Benghazi.    Benghazi.  Obama went to bed let our people die.  He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.
> 
> "Please proceed Governor"
> 
> So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?
> 
> Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB -   Be even more afraid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry.   Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been sanctions on Iran for 35 years so far. How many more years until that revolution happens? What are the chances they develop a nuke before then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you in a medically induced coma in 2009, or just spaced out on drugs?
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that sanctions caused a revolution and that the mullahs were thrown out. Your plan isn't working. And the protests in 2009 were over an election.


----------



## nat4900

rhodescholar said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once Israel (through, I believe, the surreptitious help from South Africa) managed to amass 200 nukes, it was just a matter of time that another ME country, with the means and treasury, would pursue the same course.
> We may be able (regardless of the whining right wingers) to postpone Iran's nuclear ambitions, but we will have to come to terms that unless Israel disarms its nukes, Iran will also want such destructive weaponry.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I ignore most of yours and the other low IQ, moron liberals' posts.
> 
> First, it was France and Norway who helped construct Israel's nuclear program, and they achieved it over 50 years ago.  Given that it was half a century ago, if Israel's acquisition of nukes was going to start an arms race, it would have happened long ago.  Try the facts on for a change moron, they might fit.
Click to expand...


Hey, potholeroadsscholar, I readily admit that I made a mistake  (although I did state "I think") about S. Africa helping Israel...actually it was Israel that offered to sell nukes to then apartheid-centered S. Africa....but that is way besides the point that I was trying to make.

As long as Israel has nukes, Iran will want them too....and there's is NOTHING that your ilk can do to stop them......Writhe in your own bile.


----------



## rhodescholar

Statistikhengst said:


> And so RWNJ treachery runs full-cycle.



Treachery like this, imbecile?

Senate said probing US ties to anti-Netanyahu group The Times of Israel


----------



## Statistikhengst

rhodescholar said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so RWNJ treachery runs full-cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treachery like this, imbecile?
> 
> Senate said probing US ties to anti-Netanyahu group The Times of Israel
Click to expand...

You seem angry. Did the butthurt Creme not work? 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Brain357

rhodescholar said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so RWNJ treachery runs full-cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treachery like this, imbecile?
> 
> Senate said probing US ties to anti-Netanyahu group The Times of Israel
Click to expand...


So you were ok with congress inviting him for his speech which they thought would win the election for him?  But this is a problem for you?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Brain357 said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> And so RWNJ treachery runs full-cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Treachery like this, imbecile?
> 
> Senate said probing US ties to anti-Netanyahu group The Times of Israel
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you were ok with congress inviting him for his speech which they thought would win the election for him?  But this is a problem for you?
Click to expand...

Righties and logic = oil and water. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Statistikhengst

The newest rage in restaurants, I hear, is the renaming of "Eggs Benedict" into "Eggs ala 47".


----------



## Statistikhengst

Army General calls Teheran Tom's letter with the 47 "mutinous":

Tom Cotton picked apart by Army general over mutinous Iran letter - The Washington Post

_"... I turned to retired Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton for perspective. He wouldn’t say Cotton and Co. were “traitors,” either. He had a better word.

*“I would use the word mutinous,”* said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. *I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.”* Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

*“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,”* Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. *But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” *The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said."_


----------



## Statistikhengst

The Federal Republic of Germany's Vice-Chancellor, who is also their foreign minister (Secretary of State, if you will), Walter Steinmeier, also thinks that the 47 are idiots:

Iran-Gespr che Steinmeier stellt sich gegen Senatoren-Brief - SPIEGEL ONLINE




> Eine Kostprobe davon gaben in dieser Woche 47 von 54 Senatoren der Republikaner ab, indem sie eine Art Drohbrief an Teheran veröffentlichten. Darin teilten sie mit, der US-Präsident habe nicht die Befugnis, ein dauerhaftes Abkommen im Atomstreit mit Iran abzuschließen. Und sie drohten, es unter einer neuen Regierung aufzukündigen.
> 
> Das war starker Tobak....
> 
> ...Schon ohne das Schreiben seien die Gespräche mit Iran schwierig genug gewesen, sagte er. Und mit dem Brief seien sie nun "nicht weniger schwierig" geworden. Iran könne den Westen jetzt fragen, wie glaubwürdig dessen Angebot sei, wenn 47 Senatoren schrieben: "Wir nehmen das wieder vom Tisch." Er wolle den Brief zwar nicht überhöhen, aber der sei auch "keine Kleinigkeit" und "nicht hilfreich". Nun müsse man mit der Situation umgehen und "diese Irritation ausräumen", sagte Steinmeier mit Blick auf die kommenden Gespräche mit Teheran.




Google Translator is your friend!


----------



## Statistikhengst

An Open Letter from 47 Senators to Sasha and Malia Obama - CollegeHumor Post

_"An open letter to Sasha and Malia Obama:


It has come to our attention while observing your bedtime negotiations with your Father, Barack Obama, that even though you are teenagers now, you may not fully understand your parents' relationship.  Thus, we are writing to bring to your attention two features of your parents' relationship--the power to make binding parental agreements and the different character of your parents--which you should seriously consider as negotiations progress.


First, your Father, while the President of the United States, negotiates parental agreements at the consent of your Mother, Michelle Obama. Anything not approved by your Mother is a mere Father/Daughter agreement.


Second, your parents have different characteristics.  For example, your father, the president, may only be around 2-3 days a week, while your Mother is around 7 days a week.


What these two parental provisions mean is that we will consider any agreement regarding your bedtime that is not approved by your Mother as nothing more than a Father/Daughter agreement between President Obama and Sasha and Malia Obama.  The next time only your Mother is around, she could ignore this Father/Daughter bedtime agreement with the wag of a finger. She may also exercise this discretion at any time, Father around or not.


We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of your parents' relationship and promotes mutual understanding and clarity in your bedtime negotiations progress.


Sincerely,"_


----------



## Statistikhengst

Interesting 9 minutes:

Real Time Panel Debates 47 Senators Iran Letter Crooks and Liars

(Video at the link)


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Faun said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.  DERP.  Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.
> 
> And again, with the screwed up quoting.  Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes?  WTF?  If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.
> 
> 
> 
> Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.  The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry.   Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There have been sanctions on Iran for 35 years so far. How many more years until that revolution happens? What are the chances they develop a nuke before then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you in a medically induced coma in 2009, or just spaced out on drugs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't aware that sanctions caused a revolution and that the mullahs were thrown out. Your plan isn't working. And the protests in 2009 were over an election.
Click to expand...

Most on the right advocate the same failed policy for Iran as they did Cuba.

Illegal wars and failed embargoes is all conservative foreign policy has to offer.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Statistikhengst said:


> The Federal Republic of Germany's Vice-Chancellor, who is also their foreign minister (Secretary of State, if you will), Walter Steinmeier, also thinks that the 47 are idiots:
> 
> Iran-Gespr che Steinmeier stellt sich gegen Senatoren-Brief - SPIEGEL ONLINE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eine Kostprobe davon gaben in dieser Woche 47 von 54 Senatoren der Republikaner ab, indem sie eine Art Drohbrief an Teheran veröffentlichten. Darin teilten sie mit, der US-Präsident habe nicht die Befugnis, ein dauerhaftes Abkommen im Atomstreit mit Iran abzuschließen. Und sie drohten, es unter einer neuen Regierung aufzukündigen.
> 
> Das war starker Tobak....
> 
> ...Schon ohne das Schreiben seien die Gespräche mit Iran schwierig genug gewesen, sagte er. Und mit dem Brief seien sie nun "nicht weniger schwierig" geworden. Iran könne den Westen jetzt fragen, wie glaubwürdig dessen Angebot sei, wenn 47 Senatoren schrieben: "Wir nehmen das wieder vom Tisch." Er wolle den Brief zwar nicht überhöhen, aber der sei auch "keine Kleinigkeit" und "nicht hilfreich". Nun müsse man mit der Situation umgehen und "diese Irritation ausräumen", sagte Steinmeier mit Blick auf die kommenden Gespräche mit Teheran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google Translator is your friend!
Click to expand...


Also an English report on this:

Germany Warns GOP Letter Affects Iran Talks - WSJ


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> FACT: 47 Republican Senators committed a treasonous act by interfering in the foreign policy negotiations of the sitting president. This does not fall under the rubrik of "advise and consent". This is treason.



no, it doesn't.  While what they did was stupid and counter-productive, It wasn't treasonous. They have every right to state their disagreement with a policy and remind people what their positions are. 

Maybe we all need to back down from the hysterics and actually talk about the policy.


----------



## Lakhota

This is a VERY interesting article that relates directly to this thread.  It has to do with Mossad wanting to brief U.S. Senators on the danger of interfering in the U.S./Iran nuclear negotiations.  Some Senators ignored the warning.   I'll let you read it for yourself.

Israeli spy chief warned Congress might blow up talks on Iranian nuke program

*Benjamin Netanyahu Tried to Cancel Israel Briefing for U.S. Lawmakers*


----------



## Statistikhengst

Lawrence O'Donnell from MSNBC does not think that the 47 are traitors.

Lawrence The 47 senators are not traitors MSNBC

Video at the link.


----------



## Antares

One question....is Iran a Theocracy?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Even the comics industry is cashing in on this stuff:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index....itical-with-addition-of-47-senators-book.html


----------



## NotfooledbyW

boedicca said:


> Nonsense. The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry. Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.



That does not stop Iran from pursuing nuclear energy - It forces Russia and China out of the P5+1 and then relies on Europe and North America to impose Sanctions. The reason P5+1i s effective is because Russia and China are in on them.  The US breaking the Geneva agreement of 2013 gives Russia and China a way out. 

And it's possible you are only hearing Netanyahu's lies about the length of the deal and others.



> .
> *NETANYAHU:* "The second major concession creates an even greater danger that Iran could get to the bomb by keeping the deal, because virtually all the restrictions on Iran's nuclear program will automatically expire in about a decade... Iran would then be free to build a huge nuclear capacity that could produce many, many nuclear bombs."
> 
> *THE FACTS:* Netanyahu is playing loose with the timespan for a deal. American and Western officials say the full ledger of restrictions in an agreement would stay in place for at least a decade, and only then would Iran's program be allowed to gradually expand. The total life of the agreement would be at least 15 years. Even after the full agreement expires, all sanctions against Iran won't be lifted and certainly not those pertaining to Iranian terrorism links, human rights violations and development of advanced missile technology. Some enrichment restrictions also would stay in place. These include the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty's additional protocol, which Iran is likely to sign, and perhaps even more stringent constraints. The protocol serves as an early warning mechanism for infractions.



Fact-checking Benjamin Netanyahu s speech does it stack up - Telegraph


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> One question....is Iran a Theocracy?



Why is that relevant to anything? 

Is America a Plutocracy?


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question....is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that relevant to anything?
> 
> Is America a Plutocracy?
Click to expand...


No deflecting, is Iran a Theocracy?


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question....is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that relevant to anything?
> 
> Is America a Plutocracy?
Click to expand...

MURICA is  a  theocratic plutocracy

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Antares

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question....is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that relevant to anything?
> 
> Is America a Plutocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MURICA is  a  theocratic plutocracy
> 
> Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Deflection.

Sorry no.


Is IRAN a Theocracy?


----------



## idb

rightwinger said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lakhota said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking that quote out of context again you fucking lying sack of shit. The whole paragraph the first sentence is contained in was posted yesterday with a link to the whole essay. STILL you attempt to show that he said something he never intended a reader take away from the piece.
> The second, third and fourth sentences appears nowhere attributed to Cotton except in your image.
> 
> Perhaps you can either prove Rep Cotton said and actually meant these things, or admit you speak with forked tongue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What difference does it make?
Click to expand...

You didn't make that!


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> You just aren't very educated on the religious belief system of the Iranians.  They are Islamic extremists in every sense of the word.


Don't talk to me about being un-educated.  Your racist and bigoted views are so extreme, they are completely detached from reality.  

If Iran is so extreme, then why do almost 30,000 Jews live there and practice their faith openly and without government intervention?  In addition, Iran has not attacked another nation militarily for over 300 years.  They are also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something Israel has refused to sign. 

What am I talking about?  You're so "out there", that you cannot see how inherently evil it is to shoot at people fishing.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Deflection.
> 
> Sorry no.
> 
> 
> Is IRAN a Theocracy?


Yeah, Iran is a theocracy.  They also have 75% of their population under 30.  All those kids are just waiting for these old mullahs to die off, so they can start wearing Levi's again.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just aren't very educated on the religious belief system of the Iranians.  They are Islamic extremists in every sense of the word.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't talk to me about being un-educated.  Your racist and bigoted views are so extreme, they are completely detached from reality.
> 
> If Iran is so extreme, then why do almost 30,000 Jews live there and practice their faith openly and without government intervention?  In addition, Iran has not attacked another nation militarily for over 300 years.  They are also a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, something Israel has refused to sign.
> 
> What am I talking about?  You're so "out there", that you cannot see how inherently evil it is to shoot at people fishing.
Click to expand...


Is Iran a Theocracy?


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deflection.
> 
> Sorry no.
> 
> 
> Is IRAN a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Iran is a theocracy.  They also have 75% of their population under 30.  All those kids are just waiting for these old mullahs to die off, so they can start wearing Levi's again.
Click to expand...


Why didn't Bammy help those kids in 2009?

What is the belief system of the Mullahs?


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> You're just a stupid idiot apparently with your stupid fat head buried in the sand.  Keep it there.  It's too ugly to look at.


How stupid is it to start a war with a country that will put us into a direct military confrontation with Russia, a country capable of barbecuing the United States from coast to coast, in less than a half hour?


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Is Iran a Theocracy?


I just answered that question.

They're a theocracy and we're a corporate oligarchy.  Both governments suck!

What's your point?


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question....is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that relevant to anything?
> 
> Is America a Plutocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No deflecting, is Iran a Theocracy?
Click to expand...


I didn't say it was deflecting, I ask why that is relevant to anything.

Why is it relevant as to what kind of government they have?  

Incidentally, Iran is a Democracy just as much as we are.  THey have elections and they vote in a parliament and a president.


----------



## nat4900

[QUOTE="JoeB131, post: 10967316, member: 31057This is treason.[/QUOTE]

no, it doesn't.  While what they did was stupid and counter-productive, It wasn't treasonous. They have every right to state their disagreement with a policy and remind people what their positions are. .[/QUOTE]


I would tend to agree that it is NOT treason, as I would also readily agree that it was moronic. counter-productive AND ensures that virtually all 47 dingbats will never be president.....

I wrote earlier that Bill Krystal has taken Cotton under his wing and was testing the waters, so to speak, to see if this senator would be a "hero" or......as its turning out to be, a "scapegoat."

What worries me much more is that seasoned senators joined in this folly underscoring that the hatred of Obama trumps sane decisions....even this one that is more self-destructive.

The rabid hatred....and this is my own PERSONAL opinion, has got to be rooted in both racism and elitism.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Why didn't Bammy help those kids in 2009?
> 
> What is the belief system of the Mullahs?



Are you trying to engage in a debate about how your Imaginary Friend in the Sky is better than THEIR imaginary friend in the sky?  Because, honestly, you are wasting our time here. 

We didn't help those kids in 2009 because- hey guess what, THEY LOST THE ELECTION.  Sorry, they did.  Mamoud got the most votes in both rounds of voting.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Why didn't Bammy help those kids in 2009?
> 
> What is the belief system of the Mullahs?


It doesn't matter.  They're old and they're gonna die soon. Then things will dramatically change in that country.  Those kids don't share the same belief system those old mullahs do.

Tell me, when you were in your 20's, did you completely embrace the politics of your grandparents?


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question....is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that relevant to anything?
> 
> Is America a Plutocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No deflecting, is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was deflecting, I ask why that is relevant to anything.
> 
> Why is it relevant as to what kind of government they have?
> 
> Incidentally, Iran is a Democracy just as much as we are.  THey have elections and they vote in a parliament and a president.
Click to expand...


It is relevant to everything they do, to deny that would reveal a profound ignorance as to why they do anything they do.


----------



## nat4900

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> I just answered that question.
> 
> They're a theocracy and we're a corporate oligarchy.  Both governments suck!
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...



.....or, as the ancient Greeks coined it, a plutocracy.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't Bammy help those kids in 2009?
> 
> What is the belief system of the Mullahs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to engage in a debate about how your Imaginary Friend in the Sky is better than THEIR imaginary friend in the sky?  Because, honestly, you are wasting our time here.
> 
> We didn't help those kids in 2009 because- hey guess what, THEY LOST THE ELECTION.  Sorry, they did.  Mamoud got the most votes in both rounds of voting.
Click to expand...


LMAO, yes of course.

They counted 41 million ballots in 24 hours by hand.

You are an idiot Joe.


----------



## Billo_Really

nat4900 said:


> .....or, as the ancient Greeks coined it, a plutocracy.


And we're getting dangerously close to fascism.


----------



## Antares

We've established that Iran IS a Theocracy.....

Now what is it that they believe?


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> I would tend to agree that it is NOT treason, as I would also readily agree that it was moronic. counter-productive AND ensures that virtually all 47 dingbats will never be president.....
> 
> I wrote earlier that Bill Krystal has taken Cotton under his wing and was testing the waters, so to speak, to see if this senator would be a "hero" or......as its turning out to be, a "scapegoat."
> 
> What worries me much more is that seasoned senators joined in this folly underscoring that the hatred of Obama trumps sane decisions....even this one that is more self-destructive.
> 
> The rabid hatred....and this is my own PERSONAL opinion, has got to be rooted in both racism and elitism.



I think it's more rooted in the fact that the only thing that binds the religious right, libertarian, Wall Street and NeoCon wings of the GOP right now is just how much that hate, hate, hate Obama. Unfortunately, none of these guys are going to pay a political price for it, because Obama is just not that popular. 

I might also point out, most Americans aren't too keen on any agreement with Iran. 

Fox News Poll 65 percent say use force to stop Iran 84 percent call possible deal bad idea Fox News

Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.

Voters overwhelmingly reject that deal: 84 percent -- including 80 percent of Democrats -- think it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> We've established that Iran IS a Theocracy.....
> 
> Now what is it that they believe?



They believe in a nasty fairy in the sky who hates sex and gays, just like you do. 

Folks after your own heart, really.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've established that Iran IS a Theocracy.....
> 
> Now what is it that they believe?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They believe in a nasty fairy in the sky who hates sex and gays, just like you do.
> 
> Folks after your own heart, really.
Click to expand...


Poor Joe.

I practice no Religion.....the question before you is WHAT do the Iranian Mullahs believe?

Quit pimping out your imaginary kids and be honest.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Poor Joe.
> 
> I practice no Religion.....the question before you is WHAT do the Iranian Mullahs believe?
> 
> Quit pimping out your imaginary kids and be honest.



I just told you. They believe in Imaginary Sky Fairies, just like you and your Republican Brethren do. 

But don't worry, your Sky Fairy is so much better than THEIR sky fairy.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Joe.
> 
> I practice no Religion.....the question before you is WHAT do the Iranian Mullahs believe?
> 
> Quit pimping out your imaginary kids and be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just told you. They believe in Imaginary Sky Fairies, just like you and your Republican Brethren do.
> 
> But don't worry, your Sky Fairy is so much better than THEIR sky fairy.
Click to expand...



Poor Joe, when you are ignorant obfuscate.


----------



## nat4900

Billo_Really said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....or, as the ancient Greeks coined it, a plutocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> And we're getting dangerously close to fascism.
Click to expand...


A wise man once stated that socialism without capitalism is communism.....and that capitalism without socialism winds up being fascism.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Poor Joe, when you are ignorant obfuscate.



Again, guy, I just don't want to listen to another annoying spew of what you think Muslims "believe' when I doubt you've ever read the Koran or understand their culture all that much.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

CHRISL SAID:

“I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”

Nonsense.

You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Poor Joe, when you are ignorant obfuscate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, guy, I just don't want to listen to another annoying spew of what you think Muslims "believe' when I doubt you've ever read the Koran or understand their culture all that much.
Click to expand...


You are ignorant Joe, I prove it regularly.

You run and hide or you obfuscate when you get cornered.

You do it every time.

I know exactly what the Iranian Mullah's believe, and you know I do.


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would tend to agree that it is NOT treason, as I would also readily agree that it was moronic. counter-productive AND ensures that virtually all 47 dingbats will never be president.....
> 
> I wrote earlier that Bill Krystal has taken Cotton under his wing and was testing the waters, so to speak, to see if this senator would be a "hero" or......as its turning out to be, a "scapegoat."
> 
> What worries me much more is that seasoned senators joined in this folly underscoring that the hatred of Obama trumps sane decisions....even this one that is more self-destructive.
> 
> The rabid hatred....and this is my own PERSONAL opinion, has got to be rooted in both racism and elitism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's more rooted in the fact that the only thing that binds the religious right, libertarian, Wall Street and NeoCon wings of the GOP right now is just how much that hate, hate, hate Obama. Unfortunately, none of these guys are going to pay a political price for it, because Obama is just not that popular.
> 
> I might also point out, most Americans aren't too keen on any agreement with Iran.
> 
> Fox News Poll 65 percent say use force to stop Iran 84 percent call possible deal bad idea Fox News
> 
> Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.
> 
> Voters overwhelmingly reject that deal: 84 percent -- including 80 percent of Democrats -- think it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then.
Click to expand...


You may be right in target *JoeB*......but I would guess that you're smart enough to know that the wording of any poll can determine the outcome even before the first respondent is queried. And that is why I don't believe in neither a poll from FOX or one from ABC or NYT.

This country's citizenry is virtually ignorant of history and tends to have knee-jerk reactions to most perceived threats and seems to quickly have forgotten the failures of Iraq.


----------



## Antares

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> CHRISL SAID:
> 
> “I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.



Projection Boy, pure projection.

And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> You are ignorant Joe, I prove it regularly.
> 
> You run and hide or you obfuscate when you get cornered.
> 
> You do it every time.
> 
> I know exactly what the Iranian Mullah's believe, and you know I do.



Guy, you've proven yourself so ignorant I really don't give much of what you say any stock. But you'll waste all of our time telling us about "those people'.  

Here's the thing. Only one country has ever used atomic weapons on human beings. 

The United States of America. 

We dropped them on a defeated country already seeking terms of surrender. 

we later tested them on our own soil and made thousand of our own citizens sick. 

We don't really have room to be telling the Iranians much of anything at this point.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ignorant Joe, I prove it regularly.
> 
> You run and hide or you obfuscate when you get cornered.
> 
> You do it every time.
> 
> I know exactly what the Iranian Mullah's believe, and you know I do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, you've proven yourself so ignorant I really don't give much of what you say any stock. But you'll waste all of our time telling us about "those people'.
> 
> Here's the thing. Only one country has ever used atomic weapons on human beings.
> 
> The United States of America.
> 
> We dropped them on a defeated country already seeking terms of surrender.
> 
> we later tested them on our own soil and made thousand of our own citizens sick.
> 
> We don't really have room to be telling the Iranians much of anything at this point.
Click to expand...



Deflection Joe, as usual.

This entire board knows of your ignorance Joe you can't hide.

I will with this subject do as I always do, bitch slap your ass.


----------



## Antares

Run FOREST run.....


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> You may be right in target *JoeB*......but I would guess that you're smart enough to know that the wording of any poll can determine the outcome even before the first respondent is queried. And that is why I don't believe in neither a poll from FOX or one from ABC or NYT.
> 
> This country's citizenry is virtually ignorant of history and tends to have knee-jerk reactions to most perceived threats and seems to quickly have forgotten the failures of Iraq.



I think the reason why Iraq was a failure is that we never made a full commitment.  We beat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  Because we were COMMITTED. 

Now, putting aside whether Bush lied, the fact is, he never asked for a commitment on the Global War on terror like FDR asked for a commitment against Fascism.  He didn't call for a draft, he didn't raise taxes or sell war bond, he didn't ask industry to rise to the occassion and produce war goods at a loss for the common good. 

Iran is no Nazi Germany. It's a largely impoverished country with a military equipped with the cutting edge weapons of 1975.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Deflection Joe, as usual.
> 
> This entire board knows of your ignorance Joe you can't hide.
> 
> I will with this subject do as I always do, bitch slap your ass.



Yeah, you talk big and all, but frankly, I suspect you'll just repeat shit about 76 virgins and other ignorance.


----------



## idb

Antares said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHRISL SAID:
> 
> “I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection Boy, pure projection.
> 
> And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.
Click to expand...

Then, maybe you and/or ChrisL could lay out the details of the proposals being discussed at the negotiations as well as the nature of the discussions?
Let us all in on your information so that we can make an informed decision whether to agree with ChrisL's position or not?


----------



## nat4900

*JoeB*, don't forget to thoroughly wash your hands after you answer *Antares'* posts......better yet, don't bother.


----------



## Ernie S.

Coyote said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president.  I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations.  There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns.  Sanctions are dependent on these other countries.  There is no defending their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions.  Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.
> 
> But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?
Click to expand...

They would have and SHOULD have, had Nixon been as incompetent as the current President.


----------



## Ernie S.

Coyote said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was a position they could not argue against, but don't think they did not try to paint Nixon as a liar and a fraud when he landed in china. * Democrats have never held back undermining a sitting president before,* it is only the news media driving this furor so that the bleating sheep can whine, "oh, the senators are just so _ awful _!"....you're being played, and are not smart enough to see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to this extent.  *I can't recall an incident of a group of Democrats creating a letter specifically telling a foreign power that whatever they negotiate with the president will be nullified when he's out of office.*  That is a line I have not seen crossed before and it amazes me that you guys keep defending it.  If Dems did that to a Repub president you would not defend it.  It doesn't matter who does it - it's way over the line and it is unprecedented.  Even their own party is uncomfortable with that.
Click to expand...

There in lies your problem. You obviously have no idea what the process in an agreement of this kind is. obama can negotiate and sign what ever the hell kind of agreement he wants, but until it is ratified by the Senate, it's just a piece of paper.


----------



## JoeB131

nat4900 said:


> *JoeB*, don't forget to thoroughly wash your hands after you answer *Antares'* posts......better yet, don't bother.



Actually, talking to Antares always makes me want to take a shower.  The guy is just sleazy.


----------



## BlackSand

JoeB131 said:


> Here's the thing. Only one country has ever used atomic weapons on human beings.
> 
> The United States of America.
> 
> We dropped them on a defeated country already seeking terms of surrender.
> 
> we later tested them on our own soil and made thousand of our own citizens sick.
> 
> We don't really have room to be telling the Iranians much of anything at this point.



This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.





.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> There in lies your problem. You obviously have no idea what the process in an agreement of this kind is. obama can negotiate and sign what ever the hell kind of agreement he wants, but until it is ratified by the Senate, it's just a piece of paper.



Well, no, not really. Most of the Sanctions against Iran were never voted on by Congress, and are presidential directives.  

This is what got Ronnie Raygun off the hook when he sold them missiles. 

Also, more to the point, the strength of this deal is that SIX nations are agreeing to it, not just one. Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany are agreeing to loosen sanctions in exchange for Iranian concessions on their nuclear program. 

but if those other five nations think we are not negotiating in good faith, they'll probably just cut their own deals with Iran and ignore us.


----------



## JoeB131

BlackSand said:


> This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.



What does that have to do with my point?


----------



## BlackSand

JoeB131 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with my point?
Click to expand...


What was your point in the first place?

.


----------



## JoeB131

BlackSand said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with my point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was your point in the first place?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Do you have English Comprehension Problems.  

Okay- let's try again. 

Only ONE country has ever used nuclear weapons on people.  Just one.  That nation used nuclear weapons with out any military necessity.  It was not being attacked at the time, the nation they used them against had already been crushed militarily and were seeking a diplomatic settlement. 

Said country has no real business telling OTHER countries that they can't have nuclear weapons.


----------



## Ernie S.

Lakhota said:


> Time is the only cure for tribal hatred in the Middle East.


They've had 1383 years for Christ sake. How much time do they need? It's time for the adults to tell them how it's going to be.

BTW, I said adults. You should probably fix yourself a pop tart and take a nap.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There in lies your problem. You obviously have no idea what the process in an agreement of this kind is. obama can negotiate and sign what ever the hell kind of agreement he wants, but until it is ratified by the Senate, it's just a piece of paper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, not really. Most of the Sanctions against Iran were never voted on by Congress, and are presidential directives.
> 
> This is what got Ronnie Raygun off the hook when he sold them missiles.
> 
> Also, more to the point, the strength of this deal is that SIX nations are agreeing to it, not just one. Russia, China, France, Britain and Germany are agreeing to loosen sanctions in exchange for Iranian concessions on their nuclear program.
> 
> but if those other five nations think we are not negotiating in good faith, they'll probably just cut their own deals with Iran and ignore us.
Click to expand...

A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.


----------



## BlackSand

JoeB131 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with my point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was your point in the first place?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have English Comprehension Problems.
> 
> Okay- let's try again.
> 
> Only ONE country has ever used nuclear weapons on people.  Just one.  That nation used nuclear weapons with out any military necessity.  It was not being attacked at the time, the nation they used them against had already been crushed militarily and were seeking a diplomatic settlement.
> 
> Said country has no real business telling OTHER countries that they can't have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...


What the fuck makes you think you need to explain it to me dipshit?
I am the one who posted the picture of Hiroshima ... Which would certainly indicate I know what you are talking about.

We didn't make Iran sign the nonproliferation treaty.
And the only thing the fact we have already used nuclear weapons means ... Is that it would be a stupid idea to think we won't do it again if necessary.

Not to mention conditions are better in Hiroshima than they are in Iran.

.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Or that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.



He is awful, the worst I've ever experienced and I go back many decades.



> I don't "trust them".  But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests.  Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.



As opposed to the liberals, who cheered on the granting of the nobel prize before the asshole was even in office a year?

I do not trust him in the least, and am becoming increasingly concerned he is a manchurian candidate, especially given that he has angered nearly every major ally the US has on earth - a fact not one single liberal has addressed in this thread or forum.



> The "horrible conservatives" *don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance*



Uh, you might have been asleep like rip van winkle for the last TEN YEARS of negotiations with iran, but we haven't been.



> The want yet another Mid East war.  Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?



Uhm, for the 5th time in this thread, I was against the iraq war for that reason: as bad as saddam was, he was contained, and I and every other informed mid easterner who actually knew the region understood iran was the far more dangerous and troublesome actor.



> Taking the side of ISIS?  No evidence to support that.



Again, iran created the environment where an ISIS will always exist by oppressing and attacking/terrorizing sunnis in the countries they have taken control of, such as iraq, syria, lebanon, bahrain and yemen.  Had iran not conquered these countries to expand the shia crescent, these conflicts such as in syria would not have occurred, or not been any where near as deadly.



> He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power.  It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.



Please inform your fellow libs who fawn over Rouhani, and explain that to them.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't Iran ... But it is Hiroshima.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with my point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was your point in the first place?
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have English Comprehension Problems.
> 
> Okay- let's try again.
> 
> Only ONE country has ever used nuclear weapons on people.  Just one.  That nation used nuclear weapons with out any military necessity.  It was not being attacked at the time, the nation they used them against had already been crushed militarily and were seeking a diplomatic settlement.
> 
> Said country has no real business telling OTHER countries that they can't have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

They were seeking a diplomatic solution on their terms. Defeated enemies do not dictate terms.
Besides, Japan had proven themselves to be dishonest and unlikely to abide by negotiated terms. They were talking with FDR about staying out of their war in SE Asia when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
Japan wanted concessions the US was unwilling to concede. The US demanded unconditional surrender and removal of the Emperor from power. Japan refused in a communique dated 7/29/45.
The choice, at that point was a land invasion of the Japanese main land or 2 bombs. We dropped one on 8/6 and waited a couple days for an answer. We dropped another on 8/9 and the next day, Japan agreed to our term. 
Too bad really, but look how relations with Japan are today compared with, say Viet Nam where we didn't fight to win.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> Sanctions worked to bring them to the table.  If you continue, at this point, to ratchet them up you risk driving them away any agreement or potential oversight - and building a bomb in secret.



You are clearly uninformed; the iranians did not admit to the the vast majority of their nuclear weapons program, it was exposed by anti-regime elements operating in iran.  No agreement with that regime is worth the paper it is printed on.


----------



## rhodescholar

Coyote said:


> What have they done to us?



When the mods start trolling threads, its usually time to close down the forum...


----------



## rhodescholar

Brain357 said:


> So you were ok with congress inviting him for his speech which they thought would win the election for him?  But this is a problem for you?



Your intelligence is really, really low, that it needs to be spelled out for you: obama is complaining that netanyahu is speaking before congress, while obama himself is interfering with a major foreign election himself.  Got it now, dimwit?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Coyote

Ernie S. said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president.  I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations.  There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns.  Sanctions are dependent on these other countries.  There is no defending their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions.  Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.
> 
> But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would have and SHOULD have, had Nixon been as incompetent as the current President.
Click to expand...


Neither is/was incompetent.


----------



## Ernie S.

Coyote said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president.  I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations.  There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns.  Sanctions are dependent on these other countries.  There is no defending their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions.  Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.
> 
> But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They would have and SHOULD have, had Nixon been as incompetent as the current President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither is/was incompetent.
Click to expand...

obama is barely sentient.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What have they done to us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the mods start trolling threads, its usually time to close down the forum...
Click to expand...


So you can't answer the question.


----------



## nat4900

> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.



Well, not quite........The State Dept. has always had a Foreign Affairs Manual that states:
_......... the President can enter an executive agreement without the "consent and advice" of two thirds of the senate if a previous treaty or legislation gives him the power to do so......_


----------



## Carla_Danger

ChrisL said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is Iran who wants WW III.  Don't you understand that yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power.  India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other.  Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it).  If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return.  There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example.  The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because India and Pakistan are not controlled by insane mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam.  Do you understand that?  These mullahs want to bring about an apocalyptic scenario and to destroy Israel.  That is their goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We think of them as "insane mullahs" but their not.  They're canny and political, there is no evidence to support that they want an apocolypse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> We saw a similar ridiculous perception of the Soviets during the Cold War.
> 
> It's a troubling Orwellian aspect of most conservatives, their need for some sort of 'malevolent enemy,' be it 'communism' a generation ago or Iran today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I'm not conservative.  So what now?
Click to expand...




LOL, I know, you're a Neo-Clown.


----------



## Coyote

rhodescholar said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is awful, the worst I've ever experienced and I go back many decades.
Click to expand...


That's a matter of personal opinion.  I personally place Dubya in that category.



> I don't "trust them".  But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests.  Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As opposed to the liberals, who cheered on the granting of the nobel prize before the asshole was even in office a year?
Click to expand...


I don't know if they cheered or not, but I didn't.  It certainly wasn't Obama's fault that the Nobel Prize committee did that.  He didn't ask for it.



> I do not trust him in the least, and am becoming increasingly concerned he is a manchurian candidate, especially given that he has angered nearly every major ally the US has on earth - a fact not one single liberal has addressed in this thread or forum.



I disagree but we are each entitled to our opinions.



> The "horrible conservatives" *don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, you might have been asleep like rip van winkle for the last TEN YEARS of negotiations with iran, but we haven't been.
Click to expand...


I may have been asleep but I wasn't delusional.




> The want yet another Mid East war.  Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uhm, for the 5th time in this thread, I was against the iraq war for that reason: as bad as saddam was, he was contained, and I and every other informed mid easterner who actually knew the region understood iran was the far more dangerous and troublesome actor.
Click to expand...


Umh.  Where did I say you were for the Iraq war?  That comment was not about *you*. 



> Taking the side of ISIS?  No evidence to support that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, iran created the environment where an ISIS will always exist by oppressing and attacking/terrorizing sunnis in the countries they have taken control of, such as iraq, syria, lebanon, bahrain and yemen.  Had iran not conquered these countries to expand the shia crescent, these conflicts such as in syria would not have occurred, or not been any where near as deadly.
Click to expand...


I call bullshit on that.  What created the environment that allowed for ISIS was multi-factored and while it may have included Iran's history, that is only a small part.  One of the causes was the invasion of Iraq which set the stage for further "Arab springs" and civil wars in Syria and Libya.  Iraq's marvelous election produced little more than tribal payback which disenfranchised the Sunni's and gave groups like IS an opening.



> He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power.  It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.



Please inform your fellow libs who fawn over Rouhani, and explain that to them.[/QUOTE]

Who's fawning over Rouhani?  He's a better than Ahmademongob and he's willing to negotiate and tone down the rhetoric. As to the rest we'll see.


----------



## nat4900

*bumpyroadsscholar* writes.......

_I do not trust him in the least, and am becoming increasingly concerned he is a manchurian candidate, especially given that he has angered nearly every major ally the US has on earth - *a fact* not one single liberal has addressed in this thread or forum._


Now, tell the truth, did you pull out that "fact" from the back of your dirty undies????? (LOL...this dingbat is nuts....)


----------



## Vigilante

nat4900 said:


> *bumpyroadsscholar* writes.......
> 
> _I do not trust him in the least, and am becoming increasingly concerned he is a manchurian candidate, especially given that he has angered nearly every major ally the US has on earth - *a fact* not one single liberal has addressed in this thread or forum._
> 
> 
> Now, tell the truth, did you pull out that "fact" from the back of your dirty undies????? (LOL...this dingbat is nuts....)





nat4900 said:


> *bumpyroadsscholar* writes.......
> 
> _I do not trust him in the least, and am becoming increasingly concerned he is a manchurian candidate, especially given that he has angered nearly every major ally the US has on earth - *a fact* not one single liberal has addressed in this thread or forum._
> 
> 
> Now, tell the truth, did you pull out that "fact" from the back of your dirty undies????? (LOL...this dingbat is nuts....)



Pond scum forget conveniently current history....

Europeans Outraged Over Reports of U.S. Spying - US News


----------



## nat4900

Pond scum forget conveniently current history....

Europeans Outraged Over Reports of U.S. Spying - US News[/QUOTE]

Make up your mind, first your ilk calls him weak and non-engaged....now you blame Obama's overzealousness....but you're right, he IS half-black....and that, to your sick mind is an unforgivable sin.....Come on, liberate your bigotry and admit it openly. LOL


----------



## Vigilante

nat4900 said:


> Pond scum forget conveniently current history....
> 
> Europeans Outraged Over Reports of U.S. Spying - US News



Make up your mind, first your ilk calls him weak and non-engaged....now you blame Obama's overzealousness....but you're right, he IS half-black....and that, to your sick mind is an unforgivable sin.....Come on, liberate your bigotry and admit it openly. LOL[/QUOTE]

Overzealous, I just shoved the FACT down your throat, you ate it, and come back with more bullshit! Is he NOT a mulatto? Is THAT not fact, would you rather he be refered to as a Halfrican?

You certainly are a #3 and, as with all you subversives. a definite #4!


----------



## Rinata

nat4900 said:


> *bumpyroadsscholar* writes.......
> 
> _I do not trust him in the least, and am becoming increasingly concerned he is a manchurian candidate, especially given that he has angered nearly every major ally the US has on earth - *a fact* not one single liberal has addressed in this thread or forum._
> 
> 
> Now, tell the truth, did you pull out that "fact" from the back of your dirty undies????? (LOL...this dingbat is nuts....)


----------



## Rinata

I read a great article recently about the disrespect that has been heaped on President Obama by Republicans. I think that when it's all over, they will not fare very well in the eyes of the country. They deserve it.

*Disrespect of Obama hits new low*

*Most famously, there was the widespread questioning of Obama's citizenship and academic credentials that included signs at conservative rallies describing Obama as a "lyin' African." And there was the Republican women's group that created an image of "food stamp dollars" with Obama's face on them (as well as a bucket of KFC and watermelon). There was also Republican presidential candidate and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich decrying Obama's "Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior." Plus there was then-Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer waving her finger at President Obama when she greeted Air Force One on the tarmac. Brewer later alleged she "felt a little bit threatened" by the President.*

*Taken as a whole, this list suggests a troubling pattern of profound disrespect for the President. But more than this, it seems to reflect an anti-Obama fever that has gripped the Republican Party -- one that the letter to Iran suggests shows no signs of breaking, and is a sure sign of sickness in the Republican Party.*

*Disrespect of Obama hits new low - CNN.com*


----------



## rhodescholar

Vigilante said:


> Pond scum forget conveniently current history....
> 
> Europeans Outraged Over Reports of U.S. Spying - US News



Good job, but I'm just not going to do the heavy lifting for the lazy and the stupid.  Like an adult over 12 needs to be reminded that iran murdered 241 US marines and 85 US diplomats in 1983 in Beirut, or that they injured or killed thousands of US GIs in iraq.  I am just not going to respond to idiots or stupid fucking questions posed by those too lazy to look up what a few clicks in google can provide them.


----------



## rhodescholar

Are Iran s broken human rights promises a sign of failure for nuclear deal - Middle East - Jerusalem Post

"Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations special rapporteur on Iran, wrote in a report released on Thursday that he “regrets the difficult situation of recognized and unrecognized religious minorities, and that communities continue to report arrests and prosecution for worship and participation in religious community affairs.”

Last year, 753 people were executed in Iran, the most state-sanctioned killings since 2002. 

Iran should “immediately nullify the death sentences against all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience,” Shaheed wrote.

...

Since Rouhani took office in August 2013, Iran has regressed on human rights. At a time when the world powers are slated to seal a deal with Tehran to curb its illicit nuclear weapons work, there are lessons to be learned from Iran’s failure to keep its promises on human rights.

Rouhani famously said prior to his election victory in 2013, “All ethnicities, all religions, even religious minorities, must feel justice...”

The reality has proved to be the opposite. Shaheed wrote extensively about the persecution of Iran’s Baha’i community.

=======================

And that is the scum hole of liars, terrorists and murderers that we should sign an agreement with, to trust it to follow through upon?  Really?


----------



## Statistikhengst

Antares said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHRISL SAID:
> 
> “I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection Boy, pure projection.
> 
> And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.
Click to expand...

I bet you do. Vile disgusting racists have that tendency. It is also off topic for this thread. Pay attention and learn to debate like an adult. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should admit you're a chickenhawk prepared to have others wage aggressive war on your behalf in contravention of the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles. I support countries waging wars of self defence, you support wars of aggression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuckhead idiot, I served longer than you've been alive, and one does not need to be in the fucking army to want to use the military, no more than one needs to become a teacher or a cop to improve their city's schools or police force, thats infantile trolling deflective BS. [...]
Click to expand...

One is a chickenhawk for wanting to use armies to wage aggressive war, in contravention to the UN Charter and the Nuremberg principles, in which one will not take part. If you're that keen pick up a rifle and go and sort the Iranians out.


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> Asshole, are you a fucking parrot?  When a country blocks inspections, they cannot turn around and claim "hey, we're innocent!"  Either allow full and unfettered inspections, or admit you are guilty.  BTW, i noticed you ignored my post on this several pages back, no surprise given you have zero credibility, the same as your scumbag president.


I see you cannot point out the article which requires Iran to allow full and unfettered inspection of any site whatsoever, particularly one where nuclear fuel is not considered to have been present. Not surprising in a fucking chickenhawk arsehole.

When the US is prepared to allow full and unfettered inspections of any site whatever of its own then you can squawk.


----------



## cnm

ChrisL said:


> Well, since we are the daddy of the world, I highly doubt that would ever happen.  They all rely and depend on the United States.


Dream on, you really don't have a clue.


----------



## cnm

rhodescholar said:


> [...]
> Again, iran created the environment where an ISIS will always exist by oppressing and attacking/terrorizing sunnis in the countries they have taken control of, such as iraq, syria, lebanon, bahrain and yemen. [...]


I like the way you pretend Fuckwit43's action had no relevance. It is of a piece with your chickenhawk myopia.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> We've established that Iran IS a Theocracy.....
> 
> Now what is it that they believe?


They believe what we all believed when we were 20.

Partying!


----------



## Billo_Really

rhodescholar said:


> Again, iran created the environment where an ISIS will always exist by oppressing and attacking/terrorizing sunnis in the countries they have taken control of, such as iraq, syria, lebanon, bahrain and yemen.  Had iran not conquered these countries to expand the shia crescent, these conflicts such as in syria would not have occurred, or not been any where near as deadly.


ISIS exists, because the US and Israeli governments provide them military and financial support.


----------



## Billo_Really

rhodescholar said:


> Are Iran s broken human rights promises a sign of failure for nuclear deal - Middle East - Jerusalem Post
> 
> "Dr. Ahmed Shaheed, the United Nations special rapporteur on Iran, wrote in a report released on Thursday that he “regrets the difficult situation of recognized and unrecognized religious minorities, and that communities continue to report arrests and prosecution for worship and participation in religious community affairs.”
> 
> Last year, 753 people were executed in Iran, the most state-sanctioned killings since 2002.
> 
> Iran should “immediately nullify the death sentences against all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience,” Shaheed wrote.
> 
> ...
> 
> Since Rouhani took office in August 2013, Iran has regressed on human rights. At a time when the world powers are slated to seal a deal with Tehran to curb its illicit nuclear weapons work, there are lessons to be learned from Iran’s failure to keep its promises on human rights.
> 
> Rouhani famously said prior to his election victory in 2013, “All ethnicities, all religions, even religious minorities, must feel justice...”
> 
> The reality has proved to be the opposite. Shaheed wrote extensively about the persecution of Iran’s Baha’i community.
> 
> =======================
> 
> And that is the scum hole of liars, terrorists and murderers that we should sign an agreement with, to trust it to follow through upon?  Really?


Well, I'm calling you a liar.



> *Under Rohani, Iranian Jews find greater acceptance*
> _
> Iran, a home for Jews for more than 3,000 years, has the Middle East's largest Jewish population outside of Israel, a perennial foe of the country. But while Iran's Jews in recent years had their faith continually criticized by the country's previous governments, *they've found new acceptance under moderate President Hassan Rohani*.
> 
> *"The government has listened to our grievances and requests.* That we are being consulted is an important step forward," said Homayoun Samiah, leader of the Tehran Jewish Association_.


So eat shit, you punk-ass warmonger!


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.



Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate. 

Look it up, Cleetus.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> They were seeking a diplomatic solution on their terms. Defeated enemies do not dictate terms.
> Besides, Japan had proven themselves to be dishonest and unlikely to abide by negotiated terms. They were talking with FDR about staying out of their war in SE Asia when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
> Japan wanted concessions the US was unwilling to concede. The US demanded unconditional surrender and removal of the Emperor from power. Japan refused in a communique dated 7/29/45.
> The choice, at that point was a land invasion of the Japanese main land or 2 bombs. We dropped one on 8/6 and waited a couple days for an answer. We dropped another on 8/9 and the next day, Japan agreed to our term.
> Too bad really, but look how relations with Japan are today compared with, say Viet Nam where we didn't fight to win.



Leave it to Cleetus to defend one of the great acts of Racism, nuking Japan.  

Because we'd have never nuke Germany. Those were WHITE PEOPLE.  

Point was, Japan was defeated, the only issue that was a sticking point was the status of the Emperor.  Military people like Ike and MacArthur were against using the bomb, but the politicians went ahead and did it anyway. 

Incidently, the bombs had nothing to do with Japan's surrender. We were already bombing the snot out off the country conventionally.  

It was Russia's entry into the war on August 8th that was the really turning point.  They rolled up the Japanese army in Manchuria in a week, and all of a sudden, America was totally cool with Japan keeping the Emperor.  

So getting back to my main point, how does the only country that ever used nukes on people because they were  bunch of racists get off telling another country they can't have nukes for legitimate defense?


----------



## JoeB131

BlackSand said:


> What the fuck makes you think you need to explain it to me dipshit?
> I am the one who posted the picture of Hiroshima ... Which would certainly indicate I know what you are talking about.



No, it was still a retarded picture that didn't discuss why the only country that used nukes on people gets off telling other countries they can't have nukes. 



BlackSand said:


> We didn't make Iran sign the nonproliferation treaty.
> And the only thing the fact we have already used nuclear weapons means ... Is that it would be a stupid idea to think we won't do it again if necessary.
> 
> Not to mention conditions are better in Hiroshima than they are in Iran.



I think you need to ask a Japanese what they think about the bombing of Hiroshima some time. 

It would not only be stupid to bomb Iran, it would be evil. And Evil isn't a word I use because of it's abuse by religious assholes.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> obama is barely sentient.



And yet he's accomplished far more than you ever will, Cleetus.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Rhod 10968026 





rhodescholar said:


> Uhm, for the 5th time in this thread, I was against the iraq war for that reason: as bad as saddam was, he was contained, and I and every other informed mid easterner who actually knew the region understood iran was the far more dangerous and troublesome actor.



You agreed with Obama in that you were against invading Iraq as it was called a dumb war. That's impressive. Did you vote for Bush in 2004 after seeing the dumb invasion turn into a dumb occupation and no WMD were found?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.


10967698 





JoeB131 said:


> I think it's more rooted in the fact that the only thing that binds the religious right, libertarian, Wall Street and NeoCon wings of the GOP right now is just how much that hate, hate, hate Obama. Unfortunately, none of these guys are going to pay a political price for it, because Obama is just not that popular.
> 
> I might also point out, most Americans aren't too keen on any agreement with Iran.
> 
> Fox News Poll 65 percent say use force to stop Iran 84 percent call possible deal bad idea Fox News
> 
> Overall, two-thirds of voters (65 percent) favor the U.S. using military action, if necessary, to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Just 28 percent are opposed.
> 
> Voters overwhelmingly reject that deal: 84 percent -- including 80 percent of Democrats -- think it’s a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then.




Americans will never agree that Iran should be allowed to get a nuclear bomb. The anti war left will never change the polling results whenever "Nuke Bomb and Iran" are mentioned. 

That is why the Fox New poll put forth a LIE in the poll question: they are masters at propaganda at Fox - the best in the world right now.

Obama has said he won't make deal that ever allows Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. Not in ten years. Not in fifteen years not ever.

This question is a Fox And Netanyahu lie: is it  "a bad idea to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons 10 years from now in return for agreeing it won’t obtain nukes before then."  The deal does not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons in ten years in return for agreeing it won't get nukes before then.

It's a lie because the 'breakout time' if Iran were to abandon the deal is one year. Obama has said that 'one year' will be plenty of time to take military action to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. An the longer Iran abides by this deal the more intelligence will be in Western nations file on exactly where the bombs must strike to stop Iran from getting a bomb.

There is no deal in ten years or ever that allows a delivery capability that could hit Israel.

The University of Maryland asked the question last February in a correct way and Americans responded 60% in favor of negotiating this deal.

NF 10957416 





NotfooledbyW said:


> "a clear majority of 61% recommended making a deal with Iran that would include a limited enrichment capacity for Iran. This included 61% of Republicans, 66% of Democrats and 54% of independents." University of Maryland Poll taken February 2015.
> 
> And:
> *Americans back Iran deal by 2-to-1 margin: Reuters/Ipsos poll. *BY MATT SPETALNICK. WASHINGTON Tue Nov 26, 2013 8:49pm EST
> 
> 
> _*AP-GfK Poll. Jan. 17-21, 2014. Do you approve, disapprove, or neither approve nor disapprove of the interim agreement reached between Iran and six world powers that is designed to curb Iran’s nuclear program?*_
> *Total approve*: 60 percent. *Total disapprove:* 36 percent
> 
> 
> It's been very consistent since the negotiations began in 2013:



The Left needs to counter Fox's lies by showcasing this Maryland poll and all the others.   Over and over again. And over again some more.

The left needs to quit complaining about how Americans want to bomb Iran. Iran deserves to be bombed on their "peaceful" nuclear facilities if they sign this treaty for peaceful nuclear purposes only and then try to break out to build a weapon and a means to deliver it.  Obama says the US will bomb them to stop then.

If the left bought a poll that asked "do you agree with President Obama that Iran must be bombed if they try to expand their existing peaceful nuclear power program into one to be used for making a nuclear weapon" the vast majority of Americans would answer yes and find out the President agrees with them.

The RW warmongers surely won't ask that question that way. So the left loses to Fox lies over and over again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

More reading to add to my previous post:,

NF 10969433 





NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no deal in ten years or ever that allows a delivery capability that could hit Israel.




NF 10961996 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Here's a much more informed person that does not agree with your knee jerk evaluation of what is going on. Read this entire explanation from



"Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum

Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> Uneducated Americans like yourself want a deal because you have no IDEA what you are dealing with. You are ignorant. That's all there is to it.



Who are you to call people like me and many others such as Greg Rosenbaum uneducated and Ignorant?


NF 10961996 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Here's a much more informed person that does not agree with your knee jerk evaluation of what is going on.



"Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum

Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |[/QUOTE]

There is a one year breakout period that would allow Obama or any future President to bomb facilities in Iran if they violate terms of the agreement and attempt to begin to produce a nuclear weapon. Obama said he will bomb them in order to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

I wouldn't call you personally uneducated and ignorant but I must inform you that you are ignorant of the breakout period of one year and of the fact that Obama will use military force to stop Iran from building a bomb if the deal is completed and Iran agrees and then violates it. You are uneducated and ignorant of the fact that internationally shared intelligence on what is going on inside Iran improves significantly when a deal is reach.

You ignorantly prefer less accurate intelligence on locating Iranian nuclear targets in the future should Iran attempt to breakout and break the treaty and attempt to build a nuclear bomb.

Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty

Yes it needs repeating:

*Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty

Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty

Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty*


----------



## nat4900

[QUOTE="Vigilante, post: 10968384, member: 47870

Europeans Outraged Over Reports of U.S. Spying - US News[/QUOTE]

Overzealous, I just shoved the FACT down your throat, you ate it, and come back with more bullshit! Is he NOT a mulatto? Is THAT not fact, would you rather he be refered to as a Halfrican?

You certainly are a #3 and, as with all you subversives. a definite #4! [/QUOTE]

Really, really hurts to burst you bubble (LOL) but rather than your article of 2013....let me show  you a 2014 Pew poll on how the world rates Obama (fortunately not every world citizen is as biased, racist or jingoistic as you...)

*Confidence in the U.S. President*
*How much confidence do you have in the U.S. President ?  **Percent responding Confidence (2014)*
*

*


Philippines 89% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




South Korea 84% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



France 83% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Kenya 78% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Italy 75% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



United Kingdom 74% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



South Africa 72% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Israel 71% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Germany 71% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Vietnam 67% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Japan 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Indonesia 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Ghana 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



United States 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Uganda 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Spain 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



El Salvador 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Thailand 57% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Colombia 56% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Poland 55% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Brazil 52% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



China 51% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



India 48%


----------



## Vigilante

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE="Vigilante, post: 10968384, member: 47870
> 
> Europeans Outraged Over Reports of U.S. Spying - US News



Overzealous, I just shoved the FACT down your throat, you ate it, and come back with more bullshit! Is he NOT a mulatto? Is THAT not fact, would you rather he be refered to as a Halfrican?

You certainly are a #3 and, as with all you subversives. a definite #4! [/QUOTE]

Really, really hurts to burst you bubble (LOL) but rather than your article of 2013....let me show  you a 2014 Pew poll on how the world rates Obama (fortunately not every world citizen is as biased, racist or jingoistic as you...)

*Confidence in the U.S. President*
*How much confidence do you have in the U.S. President ?  **Percent responding Confidence (2014)*
*

*


Philippines 89% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



South Korea 84% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



France 83% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Kenya 78% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Italy 75% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



United Kingdom 74% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



South Africa 72% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Israel 71% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Germany 71% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Vietnam 67% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Japan 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Indonesia 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Ghana 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



United States 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Uganda 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Spain 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



El Salvador 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Thailand 57% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Colombia 56% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Poland 55% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Brazil 52% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



China 51% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



India 48% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




[/QUOTE]

Yes, stupid people, NOT their GOVERNMENTS as I showed.... Your FAILURE rate is growing!


----------



## ChrisL

Vigilante said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Vigilante, post: 10968384, member: 47870
> 
> Europeans Outraged Over Reports of U.S. Spying - US News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Overzealous, I just shoved the FACT down your throat, you ate it, and come back with more bullshit! Is he NOT a mulatto? Is THAT not fact, would you rather he be refered to as a Halfrican?
> 
> You certainly are a #3 and, as with all you subversives. a definite #4!
Click to expand...


Really, really hurts to burst you bubble (LOL) but rather than your article of 2013....let me show  you a 2014 Pew poll on how the world rates Obama (fortunately not every world citizen is as biased, racist or jingoistic as you...)

*Confidence in the U.S. President*
*How much confidence do you have in the U.S. President ?  **Percent responding Confidence (2014)*
*

*


Philippines 89% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



South Korea 84% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



France 83% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Kenya 78% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Italy 75% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



United Kingdom 74% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



South Africa 72% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Israel 71% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Germany 71% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Vietnam 67% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Japan 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Indonesia 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Ghana 60% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



United States 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Uganda 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Spain 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



El Salvador 58% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Thailand 57% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Colombia 56% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Poland 55% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



Brazil 52% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



China 51% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



India 48% 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Yes, stupid people, NOT their GOVERNMENTS as I showed.... Your FAILURE rate is growing! [/QUOTE]

I haven't really been following this conversation, as I've said everything I need to say regarding this topic.  Those who wish to remain ignorant about Iran will continue to do so.  Whatevs.  I was just wanting to ask you what Mr. Obama's ethnicity has to do with anything.  

Edit:  I tried to fix the quoting on this post, but for some reason I can't fix it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

10969769 





Vigilante said:


> Yes, stupid people, NOT their GOVERNMENTS as I showed..



Are you in the 'government' or in the 'stupid people' group?


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> I just answered that question.
> 
> They're a theocracy and we're a corporate oligarchy.  Both governments suck!
> 
> What's your point?
Click to expand...


Big difference.  HUGE difference.  They KILL women, children and homosexuals because of their religious beliefs.  Are you a completely uneducated moron, or what?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> One question....is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that relevant to anything?
> 
> Is America a Plutocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No deflecting, is Iran a Theocracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say it was deflecting, I ask why that is relevant to anything.
> 
> Why is it relevant as to what kind of government they have?
> 
> Incidentally, Iran is a Democracy just as much as we are.  THey have elections and they vote in a parliament and a president.
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uneducated Americans like yourself want a deal because you have no IDEA what you are dealing with. You are ignorant. That's all there is to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to call people like me and many others such as Greg Rosenbaum uneducated and Ignorant?
> 
> 
> NF 10961996
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a much more informed person that does not agree with your knee jerk evaluation of what is going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
Click to expand...


There is a one year breakout period that would allow Obama or any future President to bomb facilities in Iran if they violate terms of the agreement and attempt to begin to produce a nuclear weapon. Obama said he will bomb them in order to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.

I wouldn't call you personally uneducated and ignorant but I must inform you that you are ignorant of the breakout period of one year and of the fact that Obama will use military force to stop Iran from building a bomb if the deal is completed and Iran agrees and then violates it. You are uneducated and ignorant of the fact that internationally shared intelligence on what is going on inside Iran improves significantly when a deal is reach.

You ignorantly prefer less accurate intelligence on locating Iranian nuclear targets in the future should Iran attempt to breakout and break the treaty and attempt to build a nuclear bomb.

Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty

Yes it needs repeating:

*Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty

Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty

Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty*[/QUOTE]

Are you okay?  What is with your weirdo posts anyway?    You're a fucking weirdo.


----------



## ChrisL

Liberal logic 101:  Derrrrrrp.  They are going to make a bomb anyways, let's help them out!


----------



## Vigilante

NotfooledbyW said:


> 10969769
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, stupid people, NOT their GOVERNMENTS as I showed..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you in the 'government' or in the 'stupid people' group?
Click to expand...


No, I'm not with you in the "stupid People" group!


----------



## ChrisL

Liberal Logic 101:  Oh, we know that Iran is run by a bunch of religious fanatical muslims, who murder their own citizens, are known to support and fund terrorists, but nah, they are just misunderstood and would never misuse nuclear materials and will cooperate with the IAEA inspectors.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 10969813 





ChrisL said:


> I haven't really been following this conversation, as I've said everything I need to say regarding this topic. Those who wish to remain ignorant about Iran will continue to do so



Here's where ChrisL declares herself smartest person on Iran and everyone not in agreement to be ignorant. She is in the minority in the US on agreeing with making a deal with Iran on use of peaceful nuclear power. She lies that Obama would not use military force to stop Iran from getting a bomb following a deal. She insanely believes Iran supports ISIS Terrorist scum. 

Now she runs. She's been proven wrong dozens if not hundreds of ways so running us her only option.

Goodbye. But I will continue to point out her errors. 

Because they will pop up on another thread and with time her errors will become more obvious if a deal is actually reached.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10969813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't really been following this conversation, as I've said everything I need to say regarding this topic. Those who wish to remain ignorant about Iran will continue to do so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where ChrisL declares herself smartest person on Iran and everyone not in agreement to be ignorant. She is in the minority in the US on agreeing with making a deal with Iran on use of peaceful nuclear power. She lies that Obama would not use military force to stop Iran from getting a bomb following a deal. She insanely believes Iran supports ISIS Terrorist scum.
> 
> Now she runs. She's been proven wrong dozens if not hundreds of ways so running us her only option.
> 
> Goodbye. But I will continue to point out her errors.
> 
> Because they will pop up on another thread and with time her errors will become more obvious if a deal is actually reached.
Click to expand...


I'm a HELL of a lot smarter than you, that much is obvious.    Now, I am just here to mock you for being an Obamatard.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10969813
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't really been following this conversation, as I've said everything I need to say regarding this topic. Those who wish to remain ignorant about Iran will continue to do so
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's where ChrisL declares herself smartest person on Iran and everyone not in agreement to be ignorant. She is in the minority in the US on agreeing with making a deal with Iran on use of peaceful nuclear power. She lies that Obama would not use military force to stop Iran from getting a bomb following a deal. She insanely believes Iran supports ISIS Terrorist scum.
> 
> Now she runs. She's been proven wrong dozens if not hundreds of ways so running us her only option.
> 
> Goodbye. But I will continue to point out her errors.
> 
> Because they will pop up on another thread and with time her errors will become more obvious if a deal is actually reached.
Click to expand...


Yup, you're an ignoramus.  You feel all comfy here in the United States, sitting behind your computer screen, denying the obvious FACTS about the Iranian regime.  You are the epitome of ignorance.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Vigi 10969886 





Vigilante said:


> No, I'm not with you in the "stupid People" group!



But you said governments were right and people not in the government were stupid. So you must be in the government then.


----------



## nat4900

Vigilante said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Vigilante, post: 10968384, member: 47870
> 
> Yes, stupid people, NOT their GOVERNMENTS as I showed.... Your FAILURE rate is growing!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _THAT_ is the best you can retort????  I'll let others judge....(lol)
Click to expand...


----------



## Vigilante

NotfooledbyW said:


> Vigi 10969886
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not with you in the "stupid People" group!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you said governments were right and people not in the government were stupid. So you must be in the government then.
Click to expand...


Stupid people, did that include ALL PEOPLE?..... It just doesn't get easier than this!

Even that lightweight NAT gives %'s of the people... Come on dimwit, go post over in SEWING, or UNDER WATER BASKET WEAVING!


----------



## nat4900

NotfooledbyW said:


> Vigi 10969886
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not with you in the "stupid People" group!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you said governments were right and people not in the government were stupid. So you must be in the government then.
Click to expand...


Yep, Chrissy-babe is the very definition of DELUSION....


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Big difference.  HUGE difference.  They KILL women, children and homosexuals because of their religious beliefs.  Are you a completely uneducated moron, or what?


We _"...KILL women, children and homosexuals...",_ for the same reason a dog licks' its balls.

_Back to you..._


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 10969954 





ChrisL said:


> Yup, you're an ignoramus. You feel all comfy here in the United States, sitting behind your computer screen, denying the obvious FACTS about the Iranian regime. You are the epitome of ignorance.



I am not the one running away by calling everyone who does not agree with me an ignoramus.

I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?

Part of what he recently said:

"Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum

Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |

Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10969954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you're an ignoramus. You feel all comfy here in the United States, sitting behind your computer screen, denying the obvious FACTS about the Iranian regime. You are the epitome of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one running away by calling everyone who does not agree with me an ignoramus.
> 
> I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?
> 
> Part of what he recently said:
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.
Click to expand...


I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference.  HUGE difference.  They KILL women, children and homosexuals because of their religious beliefs.  Are you a completely uneducated moron, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> We _"...KILL women, children and homosexuals...",_ for the same reason a dog licks' its balls.
> 
> _Back to you..._
Click to expand...


WTF are you talking about?  Do you even know any more in your rabid defense of radical Islam?  Your stupidity is highlighted as if on an Obama billboard with a billion lights.    Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vigi 10969886
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I'm not with you in the "stupid People" group!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you said governments were right and people not in the government were stupid. So you must be in the government then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, Chrissy-babe is the very definition of DELUSION....
Click to expand...


No that would be you, denying the facts and ignoring the facts.    Fucktard.


----------



## Theowl32

Jarhead said:


> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.



You are wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.

The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are the worst enemies to their own people on earth. At least the 80% of them that vote for democrats, who hate Israel and has made that perfectly clear.


----------



## ChrisL

Theowl32 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.
> 
> The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are worst enemies to their own people on earth.
Click to expand...


LIBERAL Jewish Americans.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: 47 Republican Senators committed a treasonous act by interfering in the foreign policy negotiations of the sitting president. This does not fall under the rubrik of "advise and consent". This is treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  While what they did was stupid and counter-productive, It wasn't treasonous. They have every right to state their disagreement with a policy and remind people what their positions are.
> 
> Maybe we all need to back down from the hysterics and actually talk about the policy.
Click to expand...

By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?


----------



## ChrisL




----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uneducated Americans like yourself want a deal because you have no IDEA what you are dealing with. You are ignorant. That's all there is to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to call people like me and many others such as Greg Rosenbaum uneducated and Ignorant?
> 
> 
> NF 10961996
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a much more informed person that does not agree with your knee jerk evaluation of what is going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a one year breakout period that would allow Obama or any future President to bomb facilities in Iran if they violate terms of the agreement and attempt to begin to produce a nuclear weapon. Obama said he will bomb them in order to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.
> 
> I wouldn't call you personally uneducated and ignorant but I must inform you that you are ignorant of the breakout period of one year and of the fact that Obama will use military force to stop Iran from building a bomb if the deal is completed and Iran agrees and then violates it. You are uneducated and ignorant of the fact that internationally shared intelligence on what is going on inside Iran improves significantly when a deal is reach.
> 
> You ignorantly prefer less accurate intelligence on locating Iranian nuclear targets in the future should Iran attempt to breakout and break the treaty and attempt to build a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty
> 
> Yes it needs repeating:
> 
> *Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty
> 
> Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty
> 
> Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty*
Click to expand...


Are you okay?  What is with your weirdo posts anyway?    You're a fucking weirdo.[/QUOTE]

Run ChrisL Run.   You are even out of lies at thus points so resorting to criticizing the format of my posts.  

I document all the misinformation and utter falsehoods that appear on message boards. The numbers are for reference only and keeping track of the progression of certain topics. It's a rather educated way of doing research sometime in the future. 

Also it saves space by focusing on the one post or subject that is being discussed. 

As you can see this method takes up more space and loses focus.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: 47 Republican Senators committed a treasonous act by interfering in the foreign policy negotiations of the sitting president. This does not fall under the rubrik of "advise and consent". This is treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  While what they did was stupid and counter-productive, It wasn't treasonous. They have every right to state their disagreement with a policy and remind people what their positions are.
> 
> Maybe we all need to back down from the hysterics and actually talk about the policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
Click to expand...


Their constituency!  They work for WE the people, not for Obama.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 10970116 





ChrisL said:


>



Are gun rights for peaceful law abiding citizens only?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uneducated Americans like yourself want a deal because you have no IDEA what you are dealing with. You are ignorant. That's all there is to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you to call people like me and many others such as Greg Rosenbaum uneducated and Ignorant?
> 
> 
> NF 10961996
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a much more informed person that does not agree with your knee jerk evaluation of what is going on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a one year breakout period that would allow Obama or any future President to bomb facilities in Iran if they violate terms of the agreement and attempt to begin to produce a nuclear weapon. Obama said he will bomb them in order to stop Iran from building a nuclear bomb.
> 
> I wouldn't call you personally uneducated and ignorant but I must inform you that you are ignorant of the breakout period of one year and of the fact that Obama will use military force to stop Iran from building a bomb if the deal is completed and Iran agrees and then violates it. You are uneducated and ignorant of the fact that internationally shared intelligence on what is going on inside Iran improves significantly when a deal is reach.
> 
> You ignorantly prefer less accurate intelligence on locating Iranian nuclear targets in the future should Iran attempt to breakout and break the treaty and attempt to build a nuclear bomb.
> 
> Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty
> 
> Yes it needs repeating:
> 
> *Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty
> 
> Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty
> 
> Obama will bomb Iran if Iran breaks this treaty*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you okay?  What is with your weirdo posts anyway?    You're a fucking weirdo.
Click to expand...


Run ChrisL Run.   You are even out of lies at thus points so resorting to criticizing the format of my posts. 

I document all the misinformation and utter falsehoods that appear on message boards. The numbers are for reference only and keeping track of the progression of certain topics. It's a rather educated way of doing research sometime in the future.

Also it saves space by focusing on the one post or subject that is being discussed.

As you can see this method takes up more space and loses focus.[/QUOTE]

The only point you've made (or TRIED to make) is . . . . Derrr.  Your posts are ridiculous tripe.  Obama doesn't have the balls to bomb anyone.  He is a pussy.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are gun rights for peaceful law abiding citizens only?
Click to expand...


Ahhh, yes.  Felons lose their rights.  Are you even FROM this country?  WTF?


----------



## nat4900

Theowl32 said:


> [QUOTE="Jarhead, post: 10924397,
> You are wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.
> 
> The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are the worst enemies to their own people on earth. At least the 80% of them that vote for democrats, who hate Israel and has made that perfectly clear.




This latest idiot just managed in one post to smear everyone...EXCEPT....his/her fellow bigots......Must be sad to be so damn full of bile.......Aren't we glad we're not that sick?


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Jarhead, post: 10924397,
> You are wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.
> 
> The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are the worst enemies to their own people on earth. At least the 80% of them that vote for democrats, who hate Israel and has made that perfectly clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This latest idiot just managed in one post to smear everyone...EXCEPT....his/her fellow bigots......Must be sad to be so damn full of bile.......Aren't we glad we're not that sick?
Click to expand...


What's the matter?  Truth hurts, eh?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 10970140 





ChrisL said:


> Ahhh, yes. Felons lose their rights. Are you even FROM this country? WTF?



When do felons become felons? Before or after they violate the law?

Is the P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?


----------



## ChrisL

And another thing, all of you idiots who claim that Iran has never attacked another country are full of it.  Iran attacks other countries by proxy!!!


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10970140
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, yes. Felons lose their rights. Are you even FROM this country? WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When do felons become felons? Before or after they violate the law?
> 
> Is the P5+1 going to become a part of international law?
Click to expand...


Another DERRR post from you.  

In addition, the Associated Press reported in November 2013 that officials in the Obama administration had been in contact secretly with Iranian officials throughout 2013 about the feasibility of an agreement over the Iranian atomic program. The report said that American and Iranian officials met face-to-face five times in Oman.[11] The secret meetings, personally authorised by U.S. President Barack Obama, were launched in March 2013 in Muscat, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in power.[12]Obama informed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of these talks when Netanyahu visited the White House on 30 September 2013.[13]

In parallel with the implementation of the P5+1 interim agreement IAEA and Iran have agreed on a framework for cooperation that includes practical measures that to resolve questions about Iran's nuclear program, including activities that may be related to nuclear weapons.[14][15][16][17]


----------



## ChrisL

Obama seems to think he is a king or something.  He doesn't CARE about the facts.


----------



## Theowl32

ChrisL said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.
> 
> The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are worst enemies to their own people on earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LIBERAL Jewish Americans.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I call them JINOs (Jews In Name Only.) They are the absolute hypocrites and wolves in sheeps clothing the prophets warned about. 

Descendants of those who danced around the gold calf. Whatever version of that false god they place in front of their true God takes on. 

Most of them, idfentify themselves as left wingers before they identify themselves as the children of Abraham. They mostly scoff at the notion of their religion, except when it benefits them. Like any other hypocrite from any other religion. 

The worst part is how they seal of the fate of their own people by gladly and gleefully and arrogantly voting in the democrats in this country, who hate Israel and have made that abundantly clear.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: 47 Republican Senators committed a treasonous act by interfering in the foreign policy negotiations of the sitting president. This does not fall under the rubrik of "advise and consent". This is treason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, it doesn't.  While what they did was stupid and counter-productive, It wasn't treasonous. They have every right to state their disagreement with a policy and remind people what their positions are.
> 
> Maybe we all need to back down from the hysterics and actually talk about the policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their constituency!  They work for WE the people, not for Obama.
Click to expand...

Their constituents do not have the authority to grant the Senate such authority.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 10970135 





ChrisL said:


> The only point you've made (or TRIED to make) is . . . . Derrr. Your posts are ridiculous tripe. Obama doesn't have the balls to bomb anyone. He is a pussy.



He has bombed thousands of Al Qaeda and Taliban to death in Afghanistan and Syria. Thousands of DAIISH terrorist scum and positions in Iraq and Syria. He wanted to bomb Assad but got the CW deal instead. He bombed Gadhaffi under a UN Resolution. 

If Iran signs a treaty and breaks it before his term is up he will bomb them and have the support of UK France and Germany for sure. 

If they break the deal the next President or two will bomb them as well. 

What planet do yo live on?


----------



## Theowl32

nat4900 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Jarhead, post: 10924397,
> You are wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.
> 
> The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are the worst enemies to their own people on earth. At least the 80% of them that vote for democrats, who hate Israel and has made that perfectly clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This latest idiot just managed in one post to smear everyone...EXCEPT....his/her fellow bigots......Must be sad to be so damn full of bile.......Aren't we glad we're not that sick?
Click to expand...


Yeah, the race card is just that easy for you losers on the left. 

I know, the truth is hard to accept. The biggest Jew haters on the earth are those traitors that call themselves Jews that hate Israel. 

They are nothing. They are exactly what we all know they are. 

Sell their souls for 30 silver pieces or dance around a golden calf. Whatever version of those things they are. They do nothing that is Jewish. They are not kosher. They do not attend temple. They observe NOTHING of the Mosaic law. 

It is demonstrated by the sickness they pump out, and now they absolutely demonstrate their blasphemy of God that they will tell you they do not believe in by siding with the sworn enemies to the land of their people. 

You have a problem with truth. Oh, I get that. Always rejecting truth and nailing it to a cross.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL 10969954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you're an ignoramus. You feel all comfy here in the United States, sitting behind your computer screen, denying the obvious FACTS about the Iranian regime. You are the epitome of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one running away by calling everyone who does not agree with me an ignoramus.
> 
> I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?
> 
> Part of what he recently said:
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.
Click to expand...

By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S. 

Have you read the book of Revelations?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

10970135 





ChrisL said:


> Your posts are ridiculous tripe



Then why can't you put up a fact based argument against the them. 

You attack Gregg Rosenbaum personally rather than respond to what he has written. I believe you have departed from facts based dialogue to ape like grunts and degenerated into mindless tonge lashing. Since you can't get away with lying here.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10970135
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only point you've made (or TRIED to make) is . . . . Derrr. Your posts are ridiculous tripe. Obama doesn't have the balls to bomb anyone. He is a pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He has bombed thousands of Al Qaeda and Taliban to death in Afghanistan and Syria. Thousands of DAIISH terrorist scum and positions in Iraq and Syria. He wanted to bomb Assad but got the CW deal instead. He bombed Gadhaffi under a UN Resolution.
> 
> If Iran signs a treaty and breaks it before his term is up he will bomb them and have the support of UK France and Germany for sure.
> 
> If they break the deal the next President or two will bomb them as well.
> 
> What planet do yo live on?
Click to expand...


Obviously, Obama is intimidated by Islam.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 10970135
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts are ridiculous tripe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you put up a fact based argument against the them.
> 
> You attack Gregg Rosenbaum personally rather than respond to what he has written. I believe you have departed from facts based dialogue to ape like grunts and degenerated into mindless tonge lashing. Since you can't get away with lying here.
Click to expand...


I have provided many links.  Go read them.  Are you denying that Iran is run by radical Islamic mullahs who believe in a 12th Imam and want to pave the way for it's arrival?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 10970135
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your posts are ridiculous tripe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why can't you put up a fact based argument against the them.
> 
> You attack Gregg Rosenbaum personally rather than respond to what he has written. I believe you have departed from facts based dialogue to ape like grunts and degenerated into mindless tonge lashing. Since you can't get away with lying here.
Click to expand...


Look, you are just an idiot.  That's a fact.  If anyone is lying, it would be you, trying to make it sound as if Iran has any good intentions at all.  You must be fucking retarded.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL 10969954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you're an ignoramus. You feel all comfy here in the United States, sitting behind your computer screen, denying the obvious FACTS about the Iranian regime. You are the epitome of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one running away by calling everyone who does not agree with me an ignoramus.
> 
> I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?
> 
> Part of what he recently said:
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S.
> 
> Have you read the book of Revelations?
Click to expand...


Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.


----------



## ChrisL

Obama is bowing to pressure from Iran while denigrating one of our closest allies.


----------



## ChrisL

How STUPID is this?  I can't even believe it.    You all have lost your MINDS.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Big difference. HUGE difference. They KILL women, children and homosexuals because of their religious beliefs. Are you a completely uneducated moron, or what?



Iran had 721 executions in 2014.

Iran Human Rights Documentation Center - IHRDC Chart of Executions by the Islamic Republic of Iran - 2014

Most of these were for crimes like murder, rape, drug trafficking, etc.

Only 11 were for the crime of "Moharebeh" - or "Waging war against God".

Only 2 were for "Sodomy".


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Obama is bowing to pressure from Iran while denigrating one of our closest allies.



Fuck Israel.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> I haven't really been following this conversation, as I've said everything I need to say regarding this topic.



You have not responded to many challenges to your opinion in a meaningful way. Insults and accusation of ignorance are not meaningful. You said you are done here. That's running. If not - try engaging meaningful based upon facts and accuracy in quoting sources.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big difference. HUGE difference. They KILL women, children and homosexuals because of their religious beliefs. Are you a completely uneducated moron, or what?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran had 721 executions in 2014.
> 
> Iran Human Rights Documentation Center - IHRDC Chart of Executions by the Islamic Republic of Iran - 2014
> 
> Most of these were for crimes like murder, rape, drug trafficking, etc.
> 
> Only 11 were for the crime of "Moharebeh" - or "Waging war against God".
Click to expand...


From your link, douche.  

This chart documents executions of people by the Islamic Republic of Iran beginning in January 2014. The official announcements are noted but, as the Iranian government does not announce many executions, it is difficult to know the exact number.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't really been following this conversation, as I've said everything I need to say regarding this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not responded to many challenges to your opinion in a meaningful way. Insults and accusation of ignorance are not meaningful. You said you are done here. That's running. If not - try engaging meaningful based upon facts and accuracy in quoting sources.
Click to expand...


Sure I have.  I've provided many valid links in this thread.  All a person has to do is go to my profile page and look at my posts and they can access my links easily, or use the search function.  Please do people!  I encourage you ALL to read my links and then tell me that you think a nuclear Iran is good?  Or should we do all we can to stop a nuclear Iran?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Liberal Logic 101: Oh, we know that Iran is run by a bunch of religious fanatical muslims, who murder their own citizens, are known to support and fund terrorists, but nah, they are just misunderstood and would never misuse nuclear materials and will cooperate with the IAEA inspectors.



We murder our own citizens. 

And given that we are the only country to EVER use nuclear weapons on people, we aren't in a position to preach, exactly.  

The point is, what keeps Iran from misuing their nukes is everyone else already has many more of them.


----------



## ChrisL

Remember the Iranian protests a few years back?  When the Revolutionary Guard was killing college kids and teenagers for protesting against their government?  Well, those that weren't killed mysteriously disappeared.  What do you all think happened to them?


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL 10969954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you're an ignoramus. You feel all comfy here in the United States, sitting behind your computer screen, denying the obvious FACTS about the Iranian regime. You are the epitome of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one running away by calling everyone who does not agree with me an ignoramus.
> 
> I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?
> 
> Part of what he recently said:
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S.
> 
> Have you read the book of Revelations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.
Click to expand...

Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> From your link, douche.
> 
> This chart documents executions of people by the Islamic Republic of Iran beginning in January 2014. The official announcements are noted but, as the Iranian government does not announce many executions, it is difficult to know the exact number.



Again, there isn't much of a point to having an execution if you aren't announcing it. Especially if you are doing it to deter others from doing the same thing.  

So Iran executes mostly murderers and rapists - which isn't good, I don't think the government should execute anyone - and you are complaining, why exactly?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal Logic 101: Oh, we know that Iran is run by a bunch of religious fanatical muslims, who murder their own citizens, are known to support and fund terrorists, but nah, they are just misunderstood and would never misuse nuclear materials and will cooperate with the IAEA inspectors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We murder our own citizens.
> 
> And given that we are the only country to EVER use nuclear weapons on people, we aren't in a position to preach, exactly.
> 
> The point is, what keeps Iran from misuing their nukes is everyone else already has many more of them.
Click to expand...


Hey, I am against the death penalty because it puts us in the same category as those monsters.  Nobody else is going to use nukes.  Iran has a goal, and it is not world peace.  It is world destruction.  Google the 12th Imam and learn.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL 10969954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you're an ignoramus. You feel all comfy here in the United States, sitting behind your computer screen, denying the obvious FACTS about the Iranian regime. You are the epitome of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one running away by calling everyone who does not agree with me an ignoramus.
> 
> I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?
> 
> Part of what he recently said:
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S.
> 
> Have you read the book of Revelations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.
Click to expand...


Oh really?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Remember the Iranian protests a few years back? When the Revolutionary Guard was killing college kids and teenagers for protesting against their government? Well, those that weren't killed mysteriously disappeared. What do you all think happened to them?



Good question. Let's talk about how many people died in the "Green Revolution" in Iran. 

From Wiki -  "In September 2010, a Twitter user called "Sarbaz01" published on Peyke-Iran website a list of 150 people killed by the Islamic regime from June 2009 to June 2010."

Okay. That sounds pretty bad.  Hey, let's see how that attempt to bring democracy to Iraq went. 

*Estimated violent deaths:*
*Lancet survey* (March 2003 – July 2006): *601,027* (95% CI: 426,369–793,663)[36][37]
*Iraq Family Health Survey* (March 2003 – July 2006): *151,000* (95% CI: 104,000–223,000
*Documented deaths from violence:*
Iraq Body Count (2003 – 14 December 2011): *103,160–113,728* civilian deaths recorded,[39] and *12,438* new deaths added from the Iraq War Logs[40]
*Associated Press* (March 2003 – April 2009): *110,600*
*
Wow.... sounds like the Iranians aren't fucking up nearly as bad as we did. *


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Remember the Iranian protests a few years back?  When the Revolutionary Guard was killing college kids and teenagers for protesting against their government?  Well, those that weren't killed mysteriously disappeared.  What do you all think happened to them?


They enrolled in Kent State?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your link, douche.
> 
> This chart documents executions of people by the Islamic Republic of Iran beginning in January 2014. The official announcements are noted but, as the Iranian government does not announce many executions, it is difficult to know the exact number.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, there isn't much of a point to having an execution if you aren't announcing it. Especially if you are doing it to deter others from doing the same thing.
> 
> So Iran executes mostly murderers and rapists - which isn't good, I don't think the government should execute anyone - and you are complaining, why exactly?
Click to expand...


Let me google that for you


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> If anyone is lying, it would be you, trying to make it sound as if Iran has any good intentions at all.



Where have I suggested Iran has good intentions. Read Gregg Rosenbaum's quote I cited and get back to me:

*"Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. "*

Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum | The Blogs | The Times of Israel Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran Greg Rosenbaum The Blogs The Times of Israel
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook



NotfooledbyW said:


> I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?
> 
> Part of what he recently said:
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.



Now quit lying about my position and get back to me.


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?



By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> Let me google that for you



Are you some kind of fucking retard?


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL 10969954 I am not the one running away by calling everyone who does not agree with me an ignoramus.
> 
> I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?
> 
> Part of what he recently said:
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S.
> 
> Have you read the book of Revelations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
Click to expand...

Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of fucking retard?
Click to expand...


No, that's what you are.  That is why I have to google for you.  Lol.    You believe Iran . . . that tells us ALL we need to know.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S.
> 
> Have you read the book of Revelations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?
Click to expand...


America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
Click to expand...

So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you some kind of fucking retard?
Click to expand...


Says the retard . . .

There are no details known about these executions.  These are simply the ones REPORTED by Iran.  Most of them were NOT public, and they are based on what Iran chooses to report.  

There are 22 pages of executions for 2015 alone.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Hey, I am against the death penalty because it puts us in the same category as those monsters. Nobody else is going to use nukes. Iran has a goal, and it is not world peace. It is world destruction. Google the 12th Imam and learn.



Hey, frankly, you FundiTards think that there's going to be a rapture and a second coming of Jesus.  How is that any less retarded than a 12th Imam?


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.



No, last time I checked, we still had a first amendment and they still had a right to express their opinions.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
Click to expand...


Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I am against the death penalty because it puts us in the same category as those monsters. Nobody else is going to use nukes. Iran has a goal, and it is not world peace. It is world destruction. Google the 12th Imam and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, frankly, you FundiTards think that there's going to be a rapture and a second coming of Jesus.  How is that any less retarded than a 12th Imam?
Click to expand...


I am not religious.  Now what?  My entire argument is based on common sense, Iran's history, who is in charge of Iran, there horrible human rights abuses, their support and funding of terrorism worldwide, and their history with the IAEA.


----------



## ChrisL

I am an agnostic, FYI.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S.
> 
> Have you read the book of Revelations?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
Click to expand...

The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.

And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> [
> 
> No, that's what you are.  That is why I have to google for you.  Lol.    You believe Iran . . . that tells us ALL we need to know.



I googled it and found a responsible human rights group that says Iran only executes about 700 people a year.  While this is bad an all, it's not Nazi Germany.  

I don't "believe" the Iranians. I just don't buy into all the Zionist propaganda to try to get us into a war that we don't need.  

Becaue honestly, we did that already, and look how well that turned out.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.
> 
> 
> 
> Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?
Click to expand...


Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I am an agnostic, FYI.



Sleep with Dogs, wake up with fleas.


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, last time I checked, we still had a first amendment and they still had a right to express their opinions.
Click to expand...

They don't have any such freedom of speech if it violates U.S. law.

Next excuse?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists. We are a secular nation that separates church and state.



And we have a president who invaded a country over weapons that didn't exist because "God Told Him To."


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

*YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.

But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> No, that's what you are.  That is why I have to google for you.  Lol.    You believe Iran . . . that tells us ALL we need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I googled it and found a responsible human rights group that says Iran only executes about 700 people a year.  While this is bad an all, it's not Nazi Germany.
> 
> I don't "believe" the Iranians. I just don't buy into all the Zionist propaganda to try to get us into a war that we don't need.
> 
> Becaue honestly, we did that already, and look how well that turned out.
Click to expand...


We don't have to buy into any propaganda.  I've posted the FACTS.  Iran is run by Islamic extremists who want to bring the world back into the dark ages with death and destruction to pave the way for their 12th Imam.  

Also, this . . . 

Iran Human Rights Official Website


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists. We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And we have a president who invaded a country over weapons that didn't exist because "God Told Him To."
Click to expand...


That has nothing to do with this topic.  Also there was more than just ONE reason why we invaded Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 10970621 





ChrisL said:


> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject. This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.



Then what is your fuss? Obama is opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And he said he would use military force after obtaining the best intelligence ever (through this deal) and use military force to stop the bomb if Iranians break the deal. There's a one year breakout time where military action can stop an attempt by Iran to start making a bomb.


----------



## BlackSand

JoeB131 said:


> I think you need to ask a Japanese what they think about the bombing of Hiroshima some time.
> 
> It would not only be stupid to bomb Iran, it would be evil. And Evil isn't a word I use because of it's abuse by religious assholes.



We don't have to ask the Japanese ... Pictures speak a 1000 words.
Evil Begets Evil ... Yadda-Yadda-Yadda!

.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> 
> 
> Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
Click to expand...


American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.  

Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10970621
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject. This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what is your fuss? Obama is opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And he said he would use military force after obtaining the best intelligence ever (through this deal) and use military force to stop the bomb if Iranians break the deal. There's a one year breakout time where military action can stop an attempt by Iran to start making a bomb.
Click to expand...


What is my fuss?  Seriously you have to ask that question?  All one has to do is look at Iran's history.  That should answer your question.


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> They don't have any such freedom of speech if it violates U.S. law.
> 
> Next excuse?



It doesn't violate US Law. 

Next.  

Look, I don't like to be the one to say this, but this whole agreement seems more like a Hail Mary pass by obama to make it look like he still controls events.  

Eventually, the other countries are going to trade with Iran no matter what agreements we wrangle out of them.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
Click to expand...

Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world. That would be Islam.



I think if you are a civilian living in Iraq or Afghanistan or Yemen, you probably feel pretty terrorized in the last decade by all those bombings.  Or is something less terrorizing when you use a 100 million dollar plane to do it?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.
> 
> 
> 
> Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?
Click to expand...


There are a LOT of differences.  For one, Christians don't want to bring about the end of times.  It is just something they believe will happen, and they are probably right given our appeasement of those Iranian nut jobs.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.
Click to expand...


Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it.  He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> I am an agnostic, FYI.


So?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.
Click to expand...


How a series of secret meetings between U.S. and Iran led to historic agreement


----------



## Theowl32

Here come the Timothy Mcveigh posts. They will claim he blew up the building on behalf of Christianity. 

The left wing morons are too stupid, too brainwashed, and too fucking ridiculous.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an agnostic, FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
Click to expand...


So?  I don't believe in the revelations.  You were accusing me of being a hard line Christian, and trying to say that is why I oppose a nuclear Iran.  Nope, my objections are based on knowledge of Iran, it's mullahs, it's history, and common sense.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it.  He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.
Click to expand...

There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> 
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it.  He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?
Click to expand...


What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
Click to expand...

Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
Click to expand...


No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.  

Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> America is not run by Christian fundamentalists.  We are a secular nation that separates church and state.
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
Click to expand...


The 47 senators did good.  I applaud them.  I just hope they don't cave to the pressure of the naive, gullible liberals.


----------



## ChrisL

We have options available with sanctions.  The only thing is that we have to get Russia and China to agree to it.  THAT is the difficult part.  However, since they are both recipients of millions if not BILLIONS of dollars in aid from the United States, we have leverage.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 10970793 





ChrisL said:


> The only thing is that we have to get Russia and China to agree to it. T



The Russians and Chinese are in on the sanctions primarily because of the P5+1 negotiations. You lose them if the US unilaterally imposes new sanctions now. 

You are truly uninformed on this whole matter.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How a series of secret meetings between U.S. and Iran led to historic agreement
Click to expand...

Even your link states there has not been a finalized agreement, which was to be made last year and didn’t happen (yet). You don't understand what you post...

_ The goal on the American side, the U.S. officials said, was simply to see if the U.S. and Iran could successfully arrange a process for continued bilateral talks — a low bar that underscored the sour state of relations between the two nations._​
... that is not a deal.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it.  He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
Click to expand...

You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10970793
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing is that we have to get Russia and China to agree to it. T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians and Chinese are in on the sanctions primarily because of the P5+1 negotiations. You lose them if the US unilaterally imposes new sanctions now.
> 
> You are truly uninformed on this whole matter.
Click to expand...


Let me google that for you


----------



## Kondor3

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10970793
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing is that we have to get Russia and China to agree to it. T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians and Chinese are in on the sanctions primarily because of the P5+1 negotiations. You lose them if the US unilaterally imposes new sanctions now.
> 
> You are truly uninformed on this whole matter.
Click to expand...

Then we lose them.

They were never going to agree to anything with teeth in it anyway; at least, not without a lot of pushing and arm-twisting.

Hell, they have more at-stake than we do, in allowing a nuclear-armed Iran; being the Infidels and Godless Communists that they are; de facto or de jure.

An Iranian ballistic missile has to travel far less distance to hit Russia or China than it does the United States.

And, of course, a bad deal *IS*, indeed, worse than no deal - regardless of *HOW* many useless 'partners' sign on to the damned thing.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it.  He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
Click to expand...


No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an agnostic, FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I don't believe in the revelations.  You were accusing me of being a hard line Christian, and trying to say that is why I oppose a nuclear Iran.  Nope, my objections are based on knowledge of Iran, it's mullahs, it's history, and common sense.
Click to expand...

I accused you of no such thing. Now you're just making up silly excuses.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL 10970793
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing is that we have to get Russia and China to agree to it. T
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians and Chinese are in on the sanctions primarily because of the P5+1 negotiations. You lose them if the US unilaterally imposes new sanctions now.
> 
> You are truly uninformed on this whole matter.
Click to expand...


The Russians and Chinese fight sanctions against Iran because they are allies of Iran.  They are the holdouts.  This has always been the case.  

China Russia Resist Iran Sanctions - WSJ


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> What is my fuss? Seriously you have to ask that question? All one has to do is look at Iran's history. That should answer your question.



What is your fuss _*because*_ as I said 

 Obama is opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And he said he would use military force after obtaining the best intelligence ever (through this deal) and use military force to stop the bomb if Iranians break the deal. There's a one year breakout time where military action can stop an attempt by Iran to start making a bomb.

You are opposed to Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb and so is Obama and Gregg Rosembaum and me. 

Yet you carry on as if that reality does not exist.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an agnostic, FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I don't believe in the revelations.  You were accusing me of being a hard line Christian, and trying to say that is why I oppose a nuclear Iran.  Nope, my objections are based on knowledge of Iran, it's mullahs, it's history, and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accused you of no such thing. Now you're just making up silly excuses.
Click to expand...


Bull, that was your assumption and you thought you could use that against me.    Backfire!!!


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian right does not believe there is a separation between church and state. They fight that doctrine all the time.
> 
> And you didn't answer the question ... what is the fundamental difference between the Christian belief of "end times" from the Islamic belief?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
Click to expand...

Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an agnostic, FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I don't believe in the revelations.  You were accusing me of being a hard line Christian, and trying to say that is why I oppose a nuclear Iran.  Nope, my objections are based on knowledge of Iran, it's mullahs, it's history, and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accused you of no such thing. Now you're just making up silly excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, that was your assumption and you thought you could use that against me.    Backfire!!!
Click to expand...

You're a nut. I never said you were religious. It's put up or shut up time. Quote me saying what you now ascribe to me or you are exposed as a fucking nut who can't follow a discussion. ...


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is my fuss? Seriously you have to ask that question? All one has to do is look at Iran's history. That should answer your question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your fuss _*because*_ as I said
> 
> Obama is opposed to Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And he said he would use military force after obtaining the best intelligence ever (through this deal) and use military force to stop the bomb if Iranians break the deal. There's a one year breakout time where military action can stop an attempt by Iran to start making a bomb.
> 
> You are opposed to Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb and so is Obama and Gregg Rosembaum and me.
> 
> Yet you carry on as if that reality does not exist.
Click to expand...


Naivety.  Obama's agreement is that Iran should be able to have nuclear power.  FACE it, Obama is dealing with Iran because he is trying to appease them.  If he was against them obtaining nuclear weapons, he should never deal with them over nuclear power.  Once they obtain the materials (with OUR blessings), they are going to make a bomb.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
Click to expand...

I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.

*Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.

*When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*

I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
Click to expand...


Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop trying to derail this thread and change the subject.  This thread is about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
Click to expand...

Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...

1. there was no violation of the Constitution

2. there was no violation of the Logan Act

The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.

The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.

There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.

Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.

So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.

It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.

Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.

The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.

The letter-signatories broke no laws.

If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am an agnostic, FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So?  I don't believe in the revelations.  You were accusing me of being a hard line Christian, and trying to say that is why I oppose a nuclear Iran.  Nope, my objections are based on knowledge of Iran, it's mullahs, it's history, and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accused you of no such thing. Now you're just making up silly excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, that was your assumption and you thought you could use that against me.    Backfire!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a nut. I never said you were religious. It's put up or shut up time. Quote me saying what you now ascribe to me or you are exposed as a fucking nut who can't follow a discussion. ...
Click to expand...


Liar.  As soon as you started talking about Christians in America, you were trying to insinuate that I held those beliefs.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama made no secret deals. They have no authority to do what they did. You inability to cite an actual authority confirms my position even though you are trying to show it doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it.  He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
Click to expand...

WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...

_"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it.  He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
Click to expand...


yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings.  That's a fact.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So?  I don't believe in the revelations.  You were accusing me of being a hard line Christian, and trying to say that is why I oppose a nuclear Iran.  Nope, my objections are based on knowledge of Iran, it's mullahs, it's history, and common sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I accused you of no such thing. Now you're just making up silly excuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bull, that was your assumption and you thought you could use that against me.    Backfire!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a nut. I never said you were religious. It's put up or shut up time. Quote me saying what you now ascribe to me or you are exposed as a fucking nut who can't follow a discussion. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.  As soon as you started talking about Christians in America, you were trying to insinuate that I held those beliefs.
Click to expand...

Translation: you can't quote me since I never said what your deranged brain _thinks _ I said. Congrats, Chris .... you just exposed yourself as a fucking nut who can't follow a discussion.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> Obama is bowing to pressure from Iran while denigrating one of our closest allies.




Well, sure, Israel, as an ally, has fought on our side all throughout the Korean, Vietnam, First Gulf, Afghanistan, Iraq, wars.......and, as an extra show of amicability, has bombed the U.S. Liberty.....(lol)


----------



## Statistikhengst

Theowl32 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not negotiate with terrorists. Iran has been found to fund terrorist activity...making them, in my eyes, a terrorist nation.
> "negotiating an agreement" is negotiating....so I support the letter. When we finally have a real President...be it a democrat or a republican.....any treaty will be  struck down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.
> 
> The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are the worst enemies to their own people on earth. At least the 80% of them that vote for democrats, who hate Israel and has made that perfectly clear.
Click to expand...

So much irrational hate coming from one little owl. And yet, owl cannot debate the facts lined out in the OP. Can little owl explain why 47 GOP Senators decided to commit a mutinous, seditious act like the stunt they pulled last week?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes he has, and I already posted a link to it.  He has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.
> 
> 
> 
> There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
Click to expand...


GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.

“We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.

The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.

The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.


----------



## nat4900

> yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings.  That's a fact.



Indeed, another "fact" that Chrissy pulled out of the back of her undies......


----------



## ChrisL

Mr. Obama seems to think he is beyond reproach.  Well, that is just not the case.


----------



## Statistikhengst

nat4900 said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Jarhead, post: 10924397,
> You are wasting your time communicating with the sacks of shit. Not only do most of them not care that Iran has declared they will annihilate Israel, they are hoping for that will happen.
> 
> The worst are the Jewish Americans, who are the worst enemies to their own people on earth. At least the 80% of them that vote for democrats, who hate Israel and has made that perfectly clear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This latest idiot just managed in one post to smear everyone...EXCEPT....his/her fellow bigots......Must be sad to be so damn full of bile.......Aren't we glad we're not that sick?
Click to expand...

His hatred of Jewry is indeed at the boiling point, I would venture to say.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings.  That's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, another "fact" that Chrissy pulled out of the back of her undies......
Click to expand...


Read and learn little boy.


----------



## Faun

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
Click to expand...

Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.


----------



## rhodescholar

cnm said:


> Liberal logic 101:  Derrrrrrp.  They are going to make a bomb anyways, let's help them out!



That was my post earlier, that the liberal chimps want to disarm you and take away your guns - since they do not believe in MAD on a personal level - but for nations the concept of MAD works well...

Its like with global warming, liberals love to quote the science behind it, but those same liberals rail against the science of genetically modified food, claiming the science is "wrong."

That's the benefit of being a liberal, you can be on both sides of the argument when you need to, and can manufacture whatever moronic nonsense you feel like at that moment - as long as it is satisfactory to the NYT and the heinous obama administration.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.


----------



## rhodescholar

NotfooledbyW said:


> She lies that Obama would not use military force to stop Iran from getting a bomb following a deal.



Given obama's "redlines" on syrian use of chemical weapons, his refusal to protect and defend Ukraine in the face of purin's red army rolling across it despite the US' obligation to defend Ukraine's territorial sovereignty as per the Budapest Memorandum, and the refusal to arm the FSA with lethal weapons in syria, the history there supports her position completely.  It is only the True Believers / idiots like yourself who still buy into obama's assurances.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU * made their religious beliefs about "end times" relevant to the thread.
> 
> But if the question is too sensitive for you to answer, just say so and I'll stop comparing their belief of "end times" with Christians'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_


----------



## Statistikhengst

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL 10969954
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, you're an ignoramus. You feel all comfy here in the United States, sitting behind your computer screen, denying the obvious FACTS about the Iranian regime. You are the epitome of ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not the one running away by calling everyone who does not agree with me an ignoramus.
> 
> I'm still here posting facts. So are you running or not. If not do you think Gregg Rosenbaum is uneducated and ignorant?
> 
> Part of what he recently said:
> 
> "Let us be clear. There is universal agreement that Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. Negotiations are ongoing and the shape of a final deal is not known to anyone, since it does not yet exist. Everyone agrees that Iran is a rogue, terrorism-sponsoring state. If an agreement is ultimately reached in Geneva and Iran breaks it, *all doubt will be removed that some other actions must be taken to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons,* and we will be in a much better position to do so and to persuade our allies to come along with us." Greg Rosembaum
> 
> Read more: Partisan sabotage does not prevent a Nuclear Iran | Greg Rosenbaum |
> 
> Do you have an argument that confirms that his comment is based on ignorance and lack of education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S.
> 
> Have you read the book of Revelations?
Click to expand...

It appears that little itty bitty insignificant owl  creature has, for he tolerates Jews just long enough for his visions of Armageddon to come true; in his perverted, cowardly, insane and completely inhumane vision of the world, we Jews are to be permitted to live now so that we can be murdered in Meggido because, because, because Benghazi or something obtuse like that. And little insignificant Owl creature has yet to actually address the content of the OP, namely that 47 batshit crazy GOP senators committed a treasonous act. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## rhodescholar

Faun said:


> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?



Did you complain when obama had Cameron calling members of congress to lobby their support for the agreement a few months ago?  Thought so.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is bowing to pressure from Iran while denigrating one of our closest allies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck Israel.
Click to expand...

That was some interesting hate. Guess you are a Rightie, after all . ...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.
Click to expand...


Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings.  That's a fact.
Click to expand...

You said he made a secret deal and then you denied saying that. You've been exposed as a fucking nut who can't even follow her own words, no less, a discussion.


----------



## nat4900

If I were to cite a liberal source and call it a "fact"....then right wing bigots have every right to call me out on it.......Exactly why when morons like Chrissy-babe cite right wing sources should THAT be called a "fact"????

Just asking............


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings.  That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said he made a secret deal and then you denied saying that. You've been exposed as a fucking nut who can't even follow her own words, no less, a discussion.
Click to expand...


Umm, nope, I've given you the information.  You just have to read it and acknowledge it.  Obama was having private meetings with Iranian officials since 2013, which led to him agreeing to this deal.  You cannot refute it because it's true.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> If I were to cite a liberal source and call it a "fact"....then right wing bigots have every right to call me out on it.......Exactly why when morons like Chrissy-babe cite right wing sources should THAT be called a "fact"????
> 
> Just asking............



Sorry, but those are the facts.  Can you refute any of them?  Do you have any evidence that any of the things that I've posted are not true?  If so, post it here and now.  I'm waiting.


----------



## rhodescholar

NotfooledbyW said:


> Are gun rights for peaceful law abiding citizens only?



Interesting that there is bipartisan support to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but lunatic regimes like iran are being granted the right to enrich uranium by a liberal president.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> If I were to cite a liberal source and call it a "fact"....then right wing bigots have every right to call me out on it.......Exactly why when morons like Chrissy-babe cite right wing sources should THAT be called a "fact"????
> 
> Just asking............



Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they aren't true, Obamaturd.    Lol.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
Click to expand...

No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge. 

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> American Christians are not fundamentalists and because we are a secular country, it wouldn't matter anyways because our Constitution sets the law.
> 
> Christians are not going around terrorizing the entire world.  That would be Islam.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
Click to expand...

The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.

They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.

As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.

As they just did.


----------



## Kondor3

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations.

So is the Logan Act.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Brain357 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to work on buying a clue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly mindless you.  You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.
> 
> First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words.  You need to try making a point with a little snap.
> 
> Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.
> 
> Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way.  That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so.  But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.
> 
> There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way.  Don't be "mad," kid.  It's really ok that the Senators intervened.   Really.  It is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran.  It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations.  It makes us look weak and divided to the world.  Putin loved it I'm sure.  It lowered our standing with the rest of the world.  Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them?  All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.
Click to expand...


If your thesis held any water (it doesn't so don't worry), the implicaion would be that it is the SOLE responsibility of the President to "negotiate" with our fucking enemies even though, clearly, the Constitution gives significant input to the Senate.

To AVOID that input, President Obumbler tries to negotiate shit in a manner that he thinks will not implicate the right of the Senate to confirm or dis-allow. 

When he acts in that imperious unilateral fashion, I am quite okay with letting the world know that his sole voice is NOT necessarily the position of the United States.  Otherwise, if he wanted to "negotiate" an abject surrender of the United States to ISIS, for example, provided that he structured it to avoid it looking like a "treaty," he alone could bend the knee of America.

Here's a newsflash for you lolberal dimwits:  that is not only NOT the way it works, it is very much antithetical to the  way it is designed to work.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you complain when obama had Cameron calling members of congress to lobby their support for the agreement a few months ago?  Thought so.
Click to expand...


These people posting here are obviously really stupid.  They cannot put 2 + 2 together.  This is all about partisanship and loyalty to the Obama for them.  They don't give two craps about the facts.  Just so long as they can save face for their dear leader.    They are very reminiscent of those North Koreans who are forced to "love" their leader.  Lol.  It's incredibly childish and silly, as are pretty much ALL of their positions.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no deal. Maybe you just don't understand what you posted?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
Click to expand...

Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me... 

_Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were seeking a diplomatic solution on their terms. Defeated enemies do not dictate terms.
> Besides, Japan had proven themselves to be dishonest and unlikely to abide by negotiated terms. They were talking with FDR about staying out of their war in SE Asia when they bombed Pearl Harbor.
> Japan wanted concessions the US was unwilling to concede. The US demanded unconditional surrender and removal of the Emperor from power. Japan refused in a communique dated 7/29/45.
> The choice, at that point was a land invasion of the Japanese main land or 2 bombs. We dropped one on 8/6 and waited a couple days for an answer. We dropped another on 8/9 and the next day, Japan agreed to our term.
> Too bad really, but look how relations with Japan are today compared with, say Viet Nam where we didn't fight to win.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to Cleetus to defend one of the great acts of Racism, nuking Japan.
> 
> Because we'd have never nuke Germany. Those were WHITE PEOPLE.
> 
> Point was, Japan was defeated, the only issue that was a sticking point was the status of the Emperor.  Military people like Ike and MacArthur were against using the bomb, but the politicians went ahead and did it anyway.
> 
> Incidently, the bombs had nothing to do with Japan's surrender. We were already bombing the snot out off the country conventionally.
> 
> It was Russia's entry into the war on August 8th that was the really turning point.  They rolled up the Japanese army in Manchuria in a week, and all of a sudden, America was totally cool with Japan keeping the Emperor.
> 
> So getting back to my main point, how does the only country that ever used nukes on people because they were  bunch of racists get off telling another country they can't have nukes for legitimate defense?
Click to expand...

Germany agreed to terms of surrender. It was not about race, idiot.

The rest of of your post is asinine. Russia did have some effect, but the timing of Japan's capitulation the day after the bombing of Nagasaki indicates to any sane person what ended hostilities.
Japan was allowed to keep the Emperor as a figure head but as of VJ day Douglas MacArthur became supreme leader of Japan.
OK a nation used a bomb, 2 actually, to end a war against an enemy of fanatics who had demonstrated an inability to negotiate in good faith. That's a situation like what we face now.
These are not sane rational people we are trying to contain. The repeatedly vow to wipe Israel off the map and drop a nuke on Washington. They no more capable of the responsibility of having a nuclear device that a homicidal maniac is capable of the rational use of a firearm.
Again, asshat. You are so easy.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't run away, you stupid fucktard.  I'm still here in case you haven't noticed.  Point being, I've provided many, many valid links with information about Iran, the mullahs, their religious beliefs (which is what their ENTIRE governmental system is based upon), and you dumb fucks want to ignore it and say, oh derrrrr, nah.  Nothing bad will ever happen.  Fucking idiots.  The people here who are intelligent will look at those links and read them and draw the CORRECT conclusions based on the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> By that measure, religious Christians shouldn't be allowed to hold public office in the U.S.
> 
> Have you read the book of Revelations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but Christians are not the problem here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many Christians in our government believe in end-of-world prophecies just as many Islamic in Iran's government believe. Worse for Republicans since many of them don't believe there's a separation between church and state. So religious Christians are just as big of a threat as religious islamic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh really?  [emoji38]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, have you read the book of Revelations, which religious Christians believe detail the "end times?" The fundamental  difference to the 12th Imam is ... ?
Click to expand...

Both are end time messianic eschatologies with lots of blood and gore.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## boedicca

IlarMeilyr said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly mindless you.  You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.
> 
> First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words.  You need to try making a point with a little snap.
> 
> Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.
> 
> Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way.  That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so.  But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.
> 
> There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way.  Don't be "mad," kid.  It's really ok that the Senators intervened.   Really.  It is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran.  It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations.  It makes us look weak and divided to the world.  Putin loved it I'm sure.  It lowered our standing with the rest of the world.  Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them?  All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your thesis held any water (it doesn't so don't worry), the implicaion would be that it is the SOLE responsibility of the President to "negotiate" with our fucking enemies even though, clearly, the Constitution gives significant input to the Senate.
> 
> To AVOID that input, President Obumbler tries to negotiate shit in a manner that he thinks will not implicate the right of the Senate to confirm or dis-allow.
> 
> When he acts in that imperious unilateral fashion, I am quite okay with letting the world know that his sole voice is NOT necessarily the position of the United States.  Otherwise, if he wanted to "negotiate" an abject surrender of the United States to ISIS, for example, provided that he structured it to avoid it looking like a "treaty," he alone could bend the knee of America.
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you lolberal dimwits:  that is not only NOT the way it works, it is very much antithetical to the  way it is designed to work.
Click to expand...



Obama's tactics also involve ceding the U.S.'s national security interest to the U.N.

_
The Obama administration said Friday it expects that as a matter of course, the UN Security Council would endorse any final nuclear agreement reached between world powers and Iran._

Read more: US to seek Security Council endorsement of Iran nuke deal | The Times of Israel US to seek Security Council endorsement of Iran nuke deal The Times of Israel 
Follow us: @timesofisrael on Twitter | timesofisrael on Facebook


What could possibly go wrong with kowtowing to Russia and China to get a deal with Iran?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

NotfooledbyW said:


> IM 10965326
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get something straight. We are *NOT obligated* to *sit idly by *and permit this asshole President to endanger all of us by the simple expedient of doing his end run around the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all the P5+1 deal is not endangering any of you fear-mongered cowards that rejects diplomacy and favors sending others to die for your lust for ever expanded war after war.
> 
> The Stupid Republican Senators who think the US rules the entire world  miss a very glaring fact - they don't and neither does the POTUS.
> 
> And they have thankfully forced the UNSC to act to protect the world from Republican Senators and also ( heaven forbid ) if a warmonger right wing POTUS would take the Oval Office in 2017.
> 
> You are officially *sitting idly by *on P5+1 forevermore if Iran signs a treaty and abides strictly to it.
> 
> 
> NF 10956845
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> . The five permanent members on the UNSC have just stepped up:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran: Officials*
> LOUIS CHARBONNEAU
> Reuters Posted: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET Updated: 03/13/15 12:00 AM ET
> (Reuters) - Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Major Nations Hold Talks On Ending U.N. Sanctions On Iran Officials
> 
> Your stepped up US Senators are the laughing stock of the entire world now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We actually can thank the letter for making a potential international deal that lifts sanction absolutely Republican sabotage proof by locking them up in a padded cell where they can't hurt themselves or anybody else. Tommy Cotton didn't think this through and 46 other dopes jumped right off the cliff with him. They thought they were messin' up Obama.
Click to expand...



Opposing the bumbling stumbling idiot President's efforts with Iran is absolutely an effort tp avoid the consequences of his imbecility.  I realize you brain dead stupid ass lolberals can't hold the thought in your pin heads very long, but maybe a tiny bit of repetition might help you out.  The President does properly have the primary voice in negotiating with other nations.  But he does NOT have the SOLE voice.

Look it up, ya stupid maggot dick face.  It's right there in the Constitution.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
Click to expand...


Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.


----------



## Statistikhengst

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
Click to expand...

You have no bloody idea how most all treaties are negotiated, then.

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Faun

rhodescholar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you complain when obama had Cameron calling members of congress to lobby their support for the agreement a few months ago?  Thought so.
Click to expand...

And which law does that violate?


----------



## rhodescholar

NotfooledbyW said:


> He wanted to bomb Assad but got the CW deal instead.



Really?  Facts much?

US accuses Syria of chlorine gas attacks RT News

"The US claims Syrian President Bashar Assad has broken the chemical weapons treaty he agreed to earlier this year, by launching chlorine gas attacks in Syrian villages."



> He bombed Gadhaffi under a UN Resolution.



Really?  How so?  Facts much?

Libya campaign has made UN missions to protect civilians less likely World news The Guardian

"For the manner in which the initial security council resolution was contorted out of all recognition from the protection of civilians to, in effect, outright regime change has left a sour taste in the mouths of powers like China, Russia and India who still hold an absolute conception of state sovereignty.""

The UN resolution did NOT authorize the military campaign obama conducted.  Stick to the facts, dimwit.



> If Iran signs a treaty and breaks it before his term is up he will bomb them and have the support of UK France and Germany for sure.



Some of us see obama for what he is, a liar and a fraud who would do no such thing.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the fuck?  Do you EVER read links to educate yourself, or do you just put your fingers in your ears and deny the truth?
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
Click to expand...



"seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.

If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.


----------



## ChrisL

Statistikhengst said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Senate put it to a vote among the whole Senate then? That is how they are Constitutionally required to ratify a treaty. Otherwise, they exceed their authority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him.  He is NOT the king.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have no bloody idea how most all treaties are negotiated, then.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Look, you are nothing but an Obama cocksucker as far as I'm concerned.  I don't take any of your posts seriously because you are blinded by your bleeding heart pussy liberal ideology.


----------



## nat4900

[QUOTE

Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.[/QUOTE]

Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution....however, as others have stated, the letter was the most moronic, hateful and disloyal act that will cost those 47 right wing senators....dearly.


----------



## ChrisL

Obama is not the king.  He works for us.  He is an employee of the citizens of the USA.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE
> 
> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.



Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution....however, as others have stated, the letter was the most moronic, hateful and disloyal act that will cost those 47 right wing senators....dearly.[/QUOTE]

Nope, I don't think so.  Just because you liberals are screaming about it and making shit up means nothing to us intelligent Americans who are capable of independent thought and do not worship politicians.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution....however, as others have stated, the letter was the most moronic, hateful and disloyal act that will cost those 47 right wing senators....dearly.
Click to expand...


The "others" who have pointed that babbling bullshit out were merely spouting baseless, partisan hack and vapid opinions.  You know, just like you.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> rhodescholar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you complain when obama had Cameron calling members of congress to lobby their support for the agreement a few months ago?  Thought so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And which law does that violate?
Click to expand...


The senators did not violate any laws either.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
Click to expand...

Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts. 

Here ya go, forum nut...

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.
> 
> Here ya go, forum nut...
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


The 47 senators are NOT ordinary citizens, dumb arse.


----------



## Ernie S.

Faun said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Where did I do that?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.
> 
> Here ya go, forum nut...
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


Fauny ^ still can't fathom how that pretty clearly does not apply to US Senators.


----------



## ChrisL

Did 47 Republican senators break the law in plain sight - CNN.com

"Every time a member of Congress does something in the foreign policy sphere that's at odds with the president, someone trots out the Logan Act," Vladeck said.

And he doesn't believe the Logan Act would hold up in court if, say, the Justice Department decided to indict Cotton -- a move everyone agrees is practically and politically completely untenable.

The Justice Department on Tuesday declined to comment on the Logan Act, but a federal law enforcement official said there's no interest in pursuing anything along these lines.

"This is a political issue, not a legal issue," the official told CNN.

Spiro agreed with Vladeck that there's no chance the senators would face prosecution, and said it's becoming less and less likely the law will ever be used again.

Part of that is because interactions between lawmakers, officials and private citizens with foreign officials have become increasingly common since the Logan Act's 1799 inception.

Remember the law's lone indictment? It happened in 1803.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Ernie S. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I do that?
Click to expand...


You didn't.   The idiot is merely proclaiming "victory" from nothing.  In short.  He lies.  What else is new?


----------



## ChrisL

*I.  “Without authority of the United States”*

The text of the Logan Act makes it a crime for citizens to engage in “any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government . . . with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government . . . in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.” As Peter explained yesterday, the Senators’ letter certainly seems to fall within this language. But, critically, the citizen must act “without authority of the United States.” Although most assume that means without authority of the _Executive Branch_, the Logan Act itself does not specify what this term means, and the State Department told Congress in 1975 that “Nothing in section 953 . . . would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution.” That doesn’t mean Members would have immunity under the Constitution’s Speech and Debate Clause; it just means the statute would arguably not apply in the first place. Combined with the rule of lenity and the constitutional concerns identified below, it seems likely that contemporary and/or future courts would interpret this provision to _not_ apply to such official communications from Congress.

*II.  The First Amendment (and the Fifth)*

The Logan Act, recall, was written in 1799, well over a century before the rise of modern First (and Fifth) Amendment doctrine with regard to protections for speech and against prosecutions for unclear misconduct. It seems quite likely, as one district court suggested in passing in 1964, that the terms of the statute are both unconstitutionally vague and in any event unlikely to survive the far stricter standards contemporary courts place on such content-based restrictions on speech. Thus, even if the Act _does_ encompass official communications from Members of Congress acting within their legislative capacity, it seems likely that it would not survive modern First Amendment scrutiny were it to be invoked in such a case.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.
> 
> Here ya go, forum nut...
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...


Senators are elected officials, just as President Obama.  What Obama has done goes against the best interests of the United States and our allies.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings.  That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said he made a secret deal and then you denied saying that. You've been exposed as a fucking nut who can't even follow her own words, no less, a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, nope, I've given you the information.  You just have to read it and acknowledge it.  Obama was having private meetings with Iranian officials since 2013, which led to him agreeing to this deal.  You cannot refute it because it's true.
Click to expand...

I didn't refute that. I refuted your idiotic claim that Obama made a secret deal. Your 180 denial of making such a claim, which I quoted, proves it.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.
Click to expand...


Nope you're wrong.  That law is obsolete and means nothing.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, he has been bowing to the demands of the Iranians in secret meetings.  That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said he made a secret deal and then you denied saying that. You've been exposed as a fucking nut who can't even follow her own words, no less, a discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Umm, nope, I've given you the information.  You just have to read it and acknowledge it.  Obama was having private meetings with Iranian officials since 2013, which led to him agreeing to this deal.  You cannot refute it because it's true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't refute that. I refuted your idiotic claim that Obama made a secret deal. Your 180 denial of making such a claim, which I quoted, proves it.
Click to expand...


He did.  He has been negotiating a deal since 2013 in private, as my many links have told you.


----------



## ChrisL

GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller

Obama has kept the details of the deal secret from senators, but is aiming to prevent Iran from being able to build a nuclear weapon in exchange for loosened sanctions.


But that draft deal is regarded by critics as evidence that the United States is giving Iran’s agitating Shia theocracy too much leeway.

Since 1979, the United States has allied with various Sunni dictatorships in the region to contain the Iranians’ aggressive efforts to gain power or intimidate Saudi Arabia, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and other countries in the oil-rich region.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
Click to expand...

Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.


----------



## ChrisL

^^^

Lol.  Good Lord!  He is loosening sanctions to prevent a nuclear Iran?  What an effing moron.  On what fucking planet does that make any sense?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.
Click to expand...


Yes, Obama wants to LOOSEN sanctions on Iran in order to keep them from developing nuclear weapons.    And you libs are eating it up hook, line and sinker.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations.
> 
> So is the Logan Act.
Click to expand...

Really? Then what do you think this means ...?

_ with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,_​


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.
Click to expand...

They were 'influencing' a pending deal.

There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.

As to your 'position', well...

Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.

Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as you start confronting facts instead of getting angry at the world...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly mindless you.  You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.
> 
> First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words.  You need to try making a point with a little snap.
> 
> Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.
> 
> Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way.  That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so.  But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.
> 
> There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way.  Don't be "mad," kid.  It's really ok that the Senators intervened.   Really.  It is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran.  It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations.  It makes us look weak and divided to the world.  Putin loved it I'm sure.  It lowered our standing with the rest of the world.  Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them?  All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your thesis held any water (it doesn't so don't worry), the implicaion would be that it is the SOLE responsibility of the President to "negotiate" with our fucking enemies even though, clearly, the Constitution gives significant input to the Senate.
> 
> To AVOID that input, President Obumbler tries to negotiate shit in a manner that he thinks will not implicate the right of the Senate to confirm or dis-allow.
> 
> When he acts in that imperious unilateral fashion, I am quite okay with letting the world know that his sole voice is NOT necessarily the position of the United States.  Otherwise, if he wanted to "negotiate" an abject surrender of the United States to ISIS, for example, provided that he structured it to avoid it looking like a "treaty," he alone could bend the knee of America.
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you lolberal dimwits:  that is not only NOT the way it works, it is very much antithetical to the  way it is designed to work.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not define 47 Republicans as _*the Senate.*_


----------



## Ernie S.

nat4900 said:


> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acts of dis-loyalty during peacetime are not considered treasonous under the Constitution....however, as others have stated, the letter was the most moronic, hateful and disloyal act that will cost those 47 right wing senators....dearly.
Click to expand...

About 1/3 of them will be up for reelection next year. Care to make a prediction as to how dearly they will pay?
Or will Democrat Senators who didn't sign pay?

I predict 56 - 60 GOP Senators in the next Congress.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations.
> 
> So is the Logan Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then what do you think this means ...?
> 
> _ with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,_​
Click to expand...


It is OBSOLETE and only ONE person has ever been prosecuted under that "law."  Lol.  It is from the 1700s!!!!  Did you not read my link about it which is based on the opinions of a constitutional expert?  Look, it is obvious to all that you libs are trying to defend the president's idiotic plan.  In what world does his plan make any sense?  You think by loosening sanctions on Iran and allowing them to gather materials for nuclear energy is going to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon?  Ba-ha-ha!!!  Don't you EVER call anyone else crazy, hypocrite.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not angry at the world.  I am not even angry at shitheads like Obumbler and his sheep (count yourself as one of the flock).
> 
> And I am the one citing facts.  You have been the one evading them.
> 
> The beam in your eye must be heavy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Silly mindless you.  You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.
> 
> First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words.  You need to try making a point with a little snap.
> 
> Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.
> 
> Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way.  That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so.  But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.
> 
> There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way.  Don't be "mad," kid.  It's really ok that the Senators intervened.   Really.  It is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran.  It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations.  It makes us look weak and divided to the world.  Putin loved it I'm sure.  It lowered our standing with the rest of the world.  Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them?  All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your thesis held any water (it doesn't so don't worry), the implicaion would be that it is the SOLE responsibility of the President to "negotiate" with our fucking enemies even though, clearly, the Constitution gives significant input to the Senate.
> 
> To AVOID that input, President Obumbler tries to negotiate shit in a manner that he thinks will not implicate the right of the Senate to confirm or dis-allow.
> 
> When he acts in that imperious unilateral fashion, I am quite okay with letting the world know that his sole voice is NOT necessarily the position of the United States.  Otherwise, if he wanted to "negotiate" an abject surrender of the United States to ISIS, for example, provided that he structured it to avoid it looking like a "treaty," he alone could bend the knee of America.
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you lolberal dimwits:  that is not only NOT the way it works, it is very much antithetical to the  way it is designed to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not define 47 Republicans as _*the Senate.*_
Click to expand...


They are a part of the senate and part of the governing body of the US of A.  Obama has no right to leave them out of negotiations.  They are members of Congress.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've demonstrated you don't understand what you post. You posted there were secret meetings and concluded that meant there was a secret deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
Click to expand...

The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations.
> 
> So is the Logan Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then what do you think this means ...?
> 
> _ with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,_​
Click to expand...

Quite correct.

The escape-hatch on this one, however, is...

"..._*without the authority of the United States*_..."

Trouble for you(r side in this debate) is...

They *ARE* the United States, in the context of identifying the Government and its constituent parts...

They *ARE* the Government (*co-equal* members, anyway), so *they gave themselves '...the authority of the United State*s...' to undertake such influencing measures.

Nothing more is required.

There will be no 'treason' charges.

There will be no charges of high crimes and misdemeanors (impeachable or recall-able offense) directed against these co-equal members of the US Government.

There will be no indictments under the aegis of the Logan Act nor any other.

Next slide, please.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"In June 2010, they sided with the Western powers rather than with Brazil and Turkey in the UNSC and voted for a fourth round of mandatory sanctions against Tehran for its continued pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities."

Source below:

ChrisL 10970853 





ChrisL said:


> The Russians and Chinese fight sanctions against Iran because they are allies of Iran. They are the holdouts. This has always been the case.



You know nothing about this subject - absolutely nothing:



> .
> Previously, Chinese and Russian officials might have blamed the George W. Bush administration for its alleged threatening behavior for blocking a diplomatic settlement and even prompting fearful Iranians to consider acquiring nuclear weapons as a means to guarantee their security. But the Obama administration’s efforts to engage Iran in negotiations about its nuclear program and other issues have led many of them at least to hold the Ahmadinejad regime primarily responsible for the continuing crisis. At international meetings, Chinese and Russian leaders have visibly sought to minimize their public contact with Ahmadinejad and distance themselves from his fiery anti-Jewish and anti-Western rhetoric.
> 
> In June 2010, they sided with the Western powers rather than with Brazil and Turkey in the UNSC and voted for a fourth round of mandatory sanctions against Tehran for its continued pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities. These activities violate earlier Council resolutions prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium or undertaking other activities that could contribute to its developing nuclear weapons until Tehran had made its current and past nuclear work more transparent to the IAEA.




Why China and Russia Help Iran The Diplomat


Of course the Russians and Chinese are allies of Iran but that does not excuse your lie about them not approving sanctions against Iran when they could easily veto all of them. 

You need to acept the fact that you are very often spewing lies here. Such as this lie:

"The *Russians and Chinese fight sanctions against Iran* because they are allies of Iran."

The sanctions passed by the UNSC are tough and they do not get passed if Russia or China veto them.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
Click to expand...

They need only act under the aegis of Senatorial Function in order to obtain all legal protections necessary.

There will be no indictments nor sanctions directed against the signatories of that letter.

None whatsoever.

You're pissing into the wind.

All you're gonna end-up with is smelly, cold, wet pants cuffs.

Next slide, please.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Obama is not the king.  He works for us.  He is an employee of the citizens of the USA.


And he was duly elected by the people which includes the responsibility of negotiating with foreign nations. Individual citizens don't get to sabotage any such deals merely because they don't like Obama or the deals he makes.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations.
> 
> So is the Logan Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then what do you think this means ...?
> 
> _ with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,_​
Click to expand...

Already covered in No. 2495, this thread...

Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn Page 250 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.
> 
> Here ya go, forum nut...
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 47 senators are NOT ordinary citizens, dumb arse.
Click to expand...

Holyfuckingshit! 

We have a "special" class of citizens now?? 



You're a fucking nut, chris.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is not the king.  He works for us.  He is an employee of the citizens of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> And he was duly elected by the people which includes the responsibility of negotiating with foreign nations. Individual citizens don't get to sabotage any such deals merely because they don't like Obama or the deals he makes.
Click to expand...


The senators are not "individual citizens".  They were also elected by the people to represent them.  They are members of Congress.  Obama is NOT a dictator or a king.  This is something he needs to realize.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.

The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.

Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.
> 
> Here ya go, forum nut...
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 47 senators are NOT ordinary citizens, dumb arse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> We have a "special" class of citizens now??
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking nut, chris.
Click to expand...


They are members of Congress, sorry but you are wrong . . . again.    Also, I believe it is a sign of mental illness when a person has to post the same laughing smileys in a row, as if that somehow makes your point more poignant?  Lol.


----------



## Faun

Ernie S. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I do that?
Click to expand...

You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."


----------



## ChrisL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.
> 
> The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.
> 
> Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.



It wasn't wrong.  I support those senators.  They are doing the right thing by America and it's allies.  

Tell me . . . what do you think is going to happen in the ME once Iran has nuclear capabilities?


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope you're wrong.  That law is obsolete and means nothing.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.
Click to expand...

You remain a fucking nut, chris.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."
Click to expand...


They should get together and do an independent investigation of Obama to see what kind of laws HE has broken.    Yes they are a part of the senate.  They are allowed to disagree with the president and to be forceful about, as that is the way our government works.  Obama is not the king.  He needs the approval of Congress before he makes any kind of treaty arrangements.  But we know how shady Obama is, and so he will use executive privilege instead of taking the correct route.  The guy is an awful president.  Just awful.  He has no common sense and is blinded by his ridiculous and stupid beyond belief liberal ideologies.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope you're wrong.  That law is obsolete and means nothing.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain a fucking nut, chris.
Click to expand...


Sorry, that would be you and anyone else who agrees with this "deal."  This deal is what is nutty.  So do tell what you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote constitutional law where the senators were in violation of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope you're wrong.  That law is obsolete and means nothing.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain a fucking nut, chris.
Click to expand...


IOW, you've got nothing so you will now resort to insults.  Liberal tactics are SO transparent.    Us more intelligent people can see right through you.


----------



## Ernie S.

Faun said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."
Click to expand...


----------



## ChrisL

Come on guys!  Don't be shy.  What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through?  Don't avoid the question.


----------



## Kondor3

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.
> 
> The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.
> 
> Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.


Rightly or wrongly, the letter-signatories cannot be touched, nor will they be.

The President has lost the trust of much of Congress and the trust of much of The People, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.

Especially in matters relating to striking a potential bad and appeasing deal with a self-declared mortal enemy of the United States, obtaining nuclear weaponry to affix atop its existing medium-range ballistic missile delivery systems.

People still remember Neville Chamberlain, and the lessons learned from that well-intentioned yet naive and gullible fellow's appeasing behaviors and outcomes.

People have long-since come to associate the President with such behaviors, especially with respect to Muslim adversaries - fairly or unfairly, rightly or wrongly.

The Senate at-large, as a co-equal branch of the US Government, and as the body responsible for vetting and ratifying treaties, is not barred from influencing the negotiation of treaties, and is seen by a great many as undertaking an 'intervention' in this instance, to either (1) thwart attempts to reduce this to an Agreement that does not have to be vetted nor ratified by the Senate, and to (2) thwart attempts to serve-up a Chamberlain-esque 'bad deal' about so visceral an issue as nuclear weaponry in the hands of our mortal enemies.

Chances are very good that each and every one of those Senators who signed the letter did so with at least a modicum of regret that we had come to such a sorry state of affairs, but, they may have acted from the courage of their convictions, so, rightly or wrongly, they get props for that much.

The rest will be proven or disproven by future events, and, in the meantime, there will be no indictments nor sanctions leveled at those signatories.

And, they have served notice to our Lame Duck President that he is perceived as no longer trustworthy, to conduct the foreign affairs of The Nation, unsupervised.


----------



## Antares

Statistikhengst said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHRISL SAID:
> 
> “I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection Boy, pure projection.
> 
> And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet you do. Vile disgusting racists have that tendency. It is also off topic for this thread. Pay attention and learn to debate like an adult.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Feel free to put me on ignore, you don't seem to have the the guts  to engage in any real debate kid.


----------



## ChrisL

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.
> 
> The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.
> 
> Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.
> 
> 
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, the letter-signatories cannot be touched, nor will they be.
> 
> The President has lost the trust of much of Congress and the trust of much of The People, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.
> 
> Especially in matters relating to striking a potential bad and appeasing deal with a self-declared mortal enemy of the United States, obtaining nuclear weaponry to affix atop its existing medium-range ballistic missile delivery systems.
> 
> People still remember Neville Chamberlain, and the lessons learned from that well-intentioned yet naive and gullible fellow's appeasing behaviors and outcomes.
> 
> People have long-since come to associated the President with such behaviors, especially with respect to Muslim adversaries - fairly or unfairly, rightly or wrongly.
> 
> The Senate at-large, as a co-equal branch of the US Government, and as the body responsible for vetting and ratifying treaties, is not barred from influencing the negotiation of treaties, and is seen by a great many as undertaking an 'intervention' in this instance, to either (1) thwart attempts to reduce this to an Agreement that does not have to be vetted nor ratified by the Senate, and to (2) thwart attempts to serve-up a Chamberlain-esque 'bad deal' about so visceral an issue as nuclear weaponry in the hands of our mortal enemies.
Click to expand...


They won't address any of your most valid points.  They are stupid ideological idiots with no common sense whatsoever.  We need better education in this country as a whole.  That much is obvious.


----------



## ChrisL

Well, I have things to do.  Good luck trying to convince the Obamatards of how terrible this deal is and the terrible precedent it sets.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
Click to expand...


Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should.


----------



## nat4900

If those 47 senators are so darn proud of that letter and would do it again in a heartbeat (and as some rightwing nut-jobs on this thread are alluding) they will actually GAIN seats in the senate come next election ..... One has to wonder why some prominent ones are NOW saying (paraphrasing

"There was a snow storm coming and we didn't pay too much attention to the letter's content....."

"Actually the letter was meant for Obama and not the Ayatollahs "

"Come on, the letter was meant as a joke..."


Just wondering........(lol)


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, don't put words in my mouth.  I never said that.  I said obama has been secretly meeting with Iranian officials since 2013.  FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
Click to expand...


No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.  

Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.


----------



## Kondor3

nat4900 said:


> If those 47 senators are so darn proud of that letter and would do it again in a heartbeat (and as some rightwing nut-jobs on this thread are alluding) they will actually GAIN seats in the senate come next election ..... One has to wonder why some prominent ones are NOW saying (paraphrasing
> 
> "There was a snow storm coming and we didn't pay too much attention to the letter's content....."
> 
> "Actually the letter was meant for Obama and not the Ayatollahs "
> 
> "Come on, the letter was meant as a joke..."
> 
> 
> Just wondering........(lol)


Pandering to the Fence Sitters, who could drift in either direction?


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> 
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were 'influencing' a pending deal.
> 
> There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.
> 
> As to your 'position', well...
> 
> Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.
> 
> Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.
Click to expand...

So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't.  So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?" There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations.
> 
> So is the Logan Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then what do you think this means ...?
> 
> _ with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is OBSOLETE and only ONE person has ever been prosecuted under that "law."  Lol.  It is from the 1700s!!!!  Did you not read my link about it which is based on the opinions of a constitutional expert?  Look, it is obvious to all that you libs are trying to defend the president's idiotic plan.  In what world does his plan make any sense?  You think by loosening sanctions on Iran and allowing them to gather materials for nuclear energy is going to prevent them from developing a nuclear weapon?  Ba-ha-ha!!!  Don't you EVER call anyone else crazy, hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Like your link on Obama meeting secretly with Iran which you calling a "secret deal," you don't understand your links, so why would I read them?


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.
> 
> Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.
Click to expand...



You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain357 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not concentrate on the facts in the OP at all. Instead, you flailed wildly because you are all mad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silly mindless you.  You try so hard to be such a loyalist for the position du jour of the liberal talking pointlesses, that you end up making an even bigger asshole of yourself quite publicly.
> 
> First of all, nobody wades through your typical wall of words.  You need to try making a point with a little snap.
> 
> Secondly, the FACT is that there is NOTHING wrong with Senators writing a letter to fucking Iran.
> 
> Thirdly, if President Obumbler wishes to craft some accord with Iran, then he might want to consider doing it in a formal and official way.  That way, when the Senate gets involved, there is no need to worry about them doing so.  But when he seeks to evade that kind of input, he has EARNED the response he got.
> 
> There are precious few "facts" in your OP opinion piece, by the way.  Don't be "mad," kid.  It's really ok that the Senators intervened.   Really.  It is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a lot wrong with senators writing a letter to Iran.  It insults all the countries involved in the negotiations.  It makes us look weak and divided to the world.  Putin loved it I'm sure.  It lowered our standing with the rest of the world.  Why would anyone make agreements with us when these senators said we won't stand by them?  All it showed is that the repubs are owned by Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your thesis held any water (it doesn't so don't worry), the implicaion would be that it is the SOLE responsibility of the President to "negotiate" with our fucking enemies even though, clearly, the Constitution gives significant input to the Senate.
> 
> To AVOID that input, President Obumbler tries to negotiate shit in a manner that he thinks will not implicate the right of the Senate to confirm or dis-allow.
> 
> When he acts in that imperious unilateral fashion, I am quite okay with letting the world know that his sole voice is NOT necessarily the position of the United States.  Otherwise, if he wanted to "negotiate" an abject surrender of the United States to ISIS, for example, provided that he structured it to avoid it looking like a "treaty," he alone could bend the knee of America.
> 
> Here's a newsflash for you lolberal dimwits:  that is not only NOT the way it works, it is very much antithetical to the  way it is designed to work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not define 47 Republicans as _*the Senate.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are a part of the senate and part of the governing body of the US of A.  Obama has no right to leave them out of negotiations.  They are members of Congress.
Click to expand...

You're a fucking loon. The Senate as a whole is a governing body. Individual Senators, while a part of that body, have no powers delegated to the Senate as a whole.

Despite your abject ignorance, they are not a special class of citizen.


----------



## Dot Com

so far one or two rw talking-heads are saying the "Cotton 47" pulled a dumb move lol


----------



## nat4900

Kondor3 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'arguments' being made by most conservatives subscribing to this thread are ridiculous, idiotic, and reprehensible.
> 
> The right's attempt to 'justify' the letter because they perceive the government in Iran as 'bad' or 'untrustworthy' is just as reckless and irresponsible as the moronic letter sent by 47 republican dullards.
> 
> Instead of having the courage to admit that the letter was wrong and a mistake most on the partisan right seek to act as apologists for those who sent the reckless and irresponsible letter only because they're fellow republicans and because they share an unwarranted hostility toward the president.
> 
> 
> 
> Rightly or wrongly, the letter-signatories cannot be touched, nor will they be.
> 
> *The President has lost the trust of much of Congress* and the trust of much of The People, to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.
> 
> Especially in matters relating to striking a potential bad and appeasing deal with a self-declared mortal enemy of the United States, obtaining nuclear weaponry to affix atop its existing medium-range ballistic missile delivery systems.
> 
> People still remember Neville Chamberlain, and the lessons learned from that well-intentioned yet naive and gullible fellow's appeasing behaviors and outcomes.
> 
> People have long-since come to associate the President with such behaviors, especially with respect to Muslim adversaries - fairly or unfairly, rightly or wrongly.
> 
> The Senate at-large, as a co-equal branch of the US Government, and as the body responsible for vetting and ratifying treaties, is not barred from influencing the negotiation of treaties, and is seen by a great many as undertaking an 'intervention' in this instance, to either (1) thwart attempts to reduce this to an Agreement that does not have to be vetted nor ratified by the Senate, and to (2) thwart attempts to serve-up a Chamberlain-esque 'bad deal' about so visceral an issue as nuclear weaponry in the hands of our mortal enemies.
> 
> Chances are very good that each and every one of those Senators who signed the letter did so with at least a modicum of regret that we had come to such a sorry state of affairs, but, they may have acted from the courage of their convictions, so, rightly or wrongly, they get props for that much.
> 
> The rest will be proven or disproven by future events, and, in the meantime, there will be no indictments nor sanctions leveled at those signatories.
> 
> And, they have served notice to our Lame Duck President that he is perceived as no longer trustworthy, to conduct the foreign affairs of The Nation, unsupervised.
Click to expand...


B.S. (as usual) Obama has not lost the "trust of congress" BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD IT from right wing bigots in congress.
From the very first week of his inauguration, right wingers met and swore to do everything to undermine his administration......What really pissed you guys on here and idiots like McConnell, is that Obama had the nerve to get RE-ELECTED.....Live with it.


----------



## Lovebears65

Obama did the same to Bush in 2008 so yeah
According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senatorsent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.

That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. His name was Barack Obama.Senator Obama s 2008 Message to Iran Undermines Condemnation of GOP Letter - Breitbart


Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> By whose authority do they have the right to influence a foreign government over a measure being worked on by the president's negotiations over a controversy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the authority that they are the body that ratifies treaties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations.
> 
> So is the Logan Act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really? Then what do you think this means ...?
> 
> _ with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quite correct.
> 
> The escape-hatch on this one, however, is...
> 
> "..._*without the authority of the United States*_..."
> 
> Trouble for you(r side in this debate) is...
> 
> They *ARE* the United States, in the context of identifying the Government and its constituent parts...
> 
> They *ARE* the Government (*co-equal* members, anyway), so *they gave themselves '...the authority of the United State*s...' to undertake such influencing measures.
> 
> Nothing more is required.
> 
> There will be no 'treason' charges.
> 
> There will be no charges of high crimes and misdemeanors (impeachable or recall-able offense) directed against these co-equal members of the US Government.
> 
> There will be no indictments under the aegis of the Logan Act nor any other.
> 
> Next slide, please.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we agree on part of this (so far) ... however, you'll have to demonstrate your "escape hatch." By what authority do they get to commence negotiations on behalf of the United States. And by the way, just because they are representatives within our government by no means establishes them as the United States or the government. The Senate as a body is granted certain powers. Individual Senators have no such powers.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is not the king.  He works for us.  He is an employee of the citizens of the USA.
> 
> 
> 
> And he was duly elected by the people which includes the responsibility of negotiating with foreign nations. Individual citizens don't get to sabotage any such deals merely because they don't like Obama or the deals he makes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The senators are not "individual citizens".  They were also elected by the people to represent them.  They are members of Congress.  Obama is NOT a dictator or a king.  This is something he needs to realize.
Click to expand...

While there is a power in the Constitution granting the president the ability to negotiate deals with foreign nations, there is nothing in the Constitution granting that same power to individual members of the Congress.

It's just not there no matter how much you hate Obama.


----------



## nat4900

Lovebears65 said:


> Obama did the same to Bush in 2008 so yeah
> According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senatorsent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.
> 
> That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. His name was Barack Obama.Senator Obama s 2008 Message to Iran Undermines Condemnation of GOP Letter - Breitbart
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Anyone who cites the likes of Breibart (may the devils wrest his soul) and no other than PAJAMAS Media......has to be either an idiot or......... (well, I'd repeat myself.)

These are the "sources" of right wing intelligentsia.....???


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.
> 
> Here ya go, forum nut...
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 47 senators are NOT ordinary citizens, dumb arse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> We have a "special" class of citizens now??
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking nut, chris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are members of Congress, sorry but you are wrong . . . again.    Also, I believe it is a sign of mental illness when a person has to post the same laughing smileys in a row, as if that somehow makes your point more poignant?  Lol.
Click to expand...

Then explain how some Americans are special citizens? What class are they in? What laws does that shield them from?

You're a fucking nut to believe there's a special class of citizens. Here's a piece from the 14th Amendment ...

_No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.*_​ 
... explain how Senators are beyond that ... ?


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> 
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should get together and do an independent investigation of Obama to see what kind of laws HE has broken.    Yes they are a part of the senate.  They are allowed to disagree with the president and to be forceful about, as that is the way our government works.  Obama is not the king.  He needs the approval of Congress before he makes any kind of treaty arrangements.  But we know how shady Obama is, and so he will use executive privilege instead of taking the correct route.  The guy is an awful president.  Just awful.  He has no common sense and is blinded by his ridiculous and stupid beyond belief liberal ideologies.
Click to expand...

Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
Click to expand...


Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should anyway.

I know that Leftists like yourself believe Obama has the power/authority to do whatever he wants.




Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were 'influencing' a pending deal.
> 
> There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.
> 
> As to your 'position', well...
> 
> Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.
> 
> Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't.  So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?" There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
Click to expand...


Nobody but the Far Left loons are "pursuing" this Logan Act nonsense.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> 
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They should get together and do an independent investigation of Obama to see what kind of laws HE has broken.    Yes they are a part of the senate.  They are allowed to disagree with the president and to be forceful about, as that is the way our government works.  Obama is not the king.  He needs the approval of Congress before he makes any kind of treaty arrangements.  But we know how shady Obama is, and so he will use executive privilege instead of taking the correct route.  The guy is an awful president.  Just awful.  He has no common sense and is blinded by his ridiculous and stupid beyond belief liberal ideologies.
Click to expand...

Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.


ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nowhere in the Constitution are select members of the Senate granted the power to vote on ratifying treaties. And U.S. law strictly prohibits them, without authority, from interfering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote from the Constitution where these senators are in violation of constitutional or broke ANY laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not permit individual citizens other than the president to negotiate treaties with foreign nations. Now had their been no law in place prohibiting such, then individual citizens could work with foreign nations to undo treaties between a sitting U.S. president and a foreign nation. But there is such a law. And since the Constitution grants the power to advise and consent such treaties to the Senate, and not just one party in the Senate, those 47 rogue senators don't have any authority granted by the Constitution to permit them to sabotage a deal that one party is against.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope you're wrong.  That law is obsolete and means nothing.  There is nothing in the Constitution that says these senators broke any laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain a fucking nut, chris.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IOW, you've got nothing so you will now resort to insults.  Liberal tactics are SO transparent.    Us more intelligent people can see right through you.
Click to expand...

You can't even read into that correctly.


----------



## Faun

Ernie S. said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> 
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Is there a reply somewhere in there?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Faun said:


> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.



LOL!  Really?

So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?

ROFLMNAO!

D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!

Proving once again that:

*THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Come on guys!  Don't be shy.  What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through?  Don't avoid the question.


If the deal goes through, then Obama has a multinational coalition to resort to military force should Iran attempt to use nuclear energy to gain a nuclear weapon.


----------



## Faun

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
Click to expand...

Great, another nut who thinks individual members of the Senate have the power of the entire Senate.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?? You're now denying you accused Obama of making a secret deal...??  Your own words betray you...
> 
> _"Well, when Obama goes to make "secret" deals, then they are fully within their rights to fight against him."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.
> 
> Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.
Click to expand...

a) it gives "the Senate" advise and consent powers over treaties, not individual Senators.

b) it gives "the Senate" advise and consent powers over treaties to the president of the United States, not foreign nations.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should anyway.
> 
> I know that Leftists like yourself believe Obama has the power/authority to do whatever he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were 'influencing' a pending deal.
> 
> There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.
> 
> As to your 'position', well...
> 
> Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.
> 
> Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't.  So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?" There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody but the Far Left loons are "pursuing" this Logan Act nonsense.
Click to expand...


The Letter is not a violation of the Logan Act.  Nor anything remotely close to it.  The suggestion by the cult that such is the case, is as ludicrous as their electing a Muslim-Marxist in the wake of the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, in the midst of a war with the cult of islam.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... the 47 Senators just pissed on the Constitution. Why on Earth would I believe the religious Christians among them wouldn't put their faith before the Constitution again?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
Click to expand...



Thank you for proving the OP to be correct.

For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.


----------



## HenryBHough

Iran, peopled by peace-loving fuzzy little bunnies, is NOT anybody's enemy.

Don't believe?  Consult your (failed) Messiah, Statist....


----------



## Statistikhengst

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give me a link.  You are not going to get away with cherry picking quotes with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits a forum nut who can't follow her own posts.
> 
> Here ya go, forum nut...
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 47 senators are NOT ordinary citizens, dumb arse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holyfuckingshit!
> 
> We have a "special" class of citizens now??
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fucking nut, chris.
Click to expand...


*YES.*


----------



## Statistikhengst

Antares said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHRISL SAID:
> 
> “I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection Boy, pure projection.
> 
> And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet you do. Vile disgusting racists have that tendency. It is also off topic for this thread. Pay attention and learn to debate like an adult.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to put me on ignore, you don't seem to have the the guts  to engage in any real debate kid.
Click to expand...


You are simply not worth it. I set the bar higher than that, Cletus.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> so far one or two rw talking-heads are saying the "Cotton 47" pulled a dumb move lol



Pretty much the percentage I was expecting....

3,000 rotten apples. 1 good apple.
2,000 rotten apples. 1 good apple.
4,000 rotten apples. 1 good apple.


----------



## hunarcy

Statistikhengst said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they did not.  They are going against our dumbass pussy of a president to let the Iranians know that we do not accept a nuclear Iran under any circumstances.  Fortunately, not everyone is a complete tard like the Obamatard.
> 
> Also, if you think America and Iran are similar, perhaps you should go stay there for a while.  I can guarantee you, you won't be posting and talking about this stuff on the internet.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving the OP to be correct.
> 
> For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.
Click to expand...


If I  may ask a question, if a policeman advises you to not point a gun at him or he'll shoot you, he'd be giving you aid and comfort?  That is amusing, but just as wrong headed thinking as you exhibit by saying that warning Iran that any agreement that isn't approved by the Senate won't be binding in the future, implying that they shouldn't work so hard to create a bad agreement for the United States was giving aid and comfort and therefore treasonous.  Ridiculous on it's face...so bad, that I have to wonder if you're just playing word games and don't really believe the twaddle you are posting now.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Faun said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, another nut who thinks individual members of the Senate have the power of the entire Senate.
Click to expand...



ODS is a very serious disease. Especially in Stage IV, which essentially means mental hospice care for the poor unfortunate victims.


----------



## Antares

Statistikhengst said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHRISL SAID:
> 
> “I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power.”
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> You have no idea what you're talking about, you have no idea what the issues are concerning the talks, you have no idea what other countries are involved, and you have no idea what the American position is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Projection Boy, pure projection.
> 
> And yes, I intend the worst possible meaning of the word Boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet you do. Vile disgusting racists have that tendency. It is also off topic for this thread. Pay attention and learn to debate like an adult.
> 
> Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Feel free to put me on ignore, you don't seem to have the the guts  to engage in any real debate kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply not worth it. I set the bar higher than that, Cletus.
Click to expand...


You poor kid, have you "prosecuted" any of the "traitors" yet?

Now....here is a truth for you...one you and the rest of your Leftwing Cadre try so desperately to avoid....

Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.

They believe that can do this through Global Chaos....and that's why you people are idiots...


----------



## nat4900

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
Click to expand...


Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.

However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.

Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?


----------



## Statistikhengst

hunarcy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they did. Nowhere does the Constitution give select members of Congress the authority to do what they did. You are clueless about the Constitution to believe that it does.  Furthermore, their actions could very well be in violation of U.S. law (the Logan Act).
> 
> 
> 
> Re: the Congressional letter to Iran...
> 
> 1. there was no violation of the Constitution
> 
> 2. there was no violation of the Logan Act
> 
> The President has lost the confidence of much of Congress, and much of the American People, with regard to his conduct in the sphere of foreign policy.
> 
> The President is no longer trusted to do the right thing - *especially* in matters related to nuclear weaponry in the hands of mortal enemies.
> 
> There's too much at stake to leave this to Neville Chamberlain types.
> 
> Congress cannot stop the (now, somewhat distrusted) President from negotiating a bad deal.
> 
> So they openly and clearly inform the beneficiary (Iran) of any such pending bad deal that the deal will be renounced, the minute the President leaves office.
> 
> It's unprecedented alright, or, at least, highly irregular - and more than a little uncomfortable for most Americans - but those elected representatives and integral and fully-empowerd members of the Government (the branch that passes judgment on and ratifies treaties, by the way) decided that the situation had deteriorated to the point where such an intervention was necessary and appropriate.
> 
> Checks and balances - under extraordinary circumstances.
> 
> The Constitution still works... checks-and-balances are alive and well... inside and outside of a formal legislative process.
> 
> The letter-signatories broke no laws.
> 
> If you believe differently... wake us up when the US Justice Dept delivers indictments against the letter-signatories, for breaking the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not allow for anyone but the president and the Senate to establish treaties with foreign nations. A select group of Senators in no way constitutes, _"The Senate."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving the OP to be correct.
> 
> For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I  may ask a question, if a policeman advises you to not point a gun at him or he'll shoot you, he'd be giving you aid and comfort?  That is amusing, but just as wrong headed thinking as you exhibit by saying that warning Iran that any agreement that isn't approved by the Senate won't be binding in the future, implying that they shouldn't work so hard to create a bad agreement for the United States was giving aid and comfort and therefore treasonous.  Ridiculous on it's face...so bad, that I have to wonder if you're just playing word games and don't really believe the twaddle you are posting now.
Click to expand...



That was a strange argument, to say the least.


----------



## hunarcy

nat4900 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
Click to expand...


Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.
> 
> Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
Click to expand...



wrong again nattwit.

In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler.  He sucks massively as President.  I detest his policies and policy inclinations.  I loathe his political philosophy.

But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.


----------



## nat4900

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should anyway.
> 
> I know that Leftists like yourself believe Obama has the power/authority to do whatever he wants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The signatories to the letter are not negotiating a treaty.
> 
> They are merely advising a mortal enemy that the treaty will not outlive the term of office of its purveyor.
> 
> As fully-fledged members of the National Government, they can do that.
> 
> As they just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said they were "negotiating" a deal? My position is that they were attempting to "defeat" a deal in the works between Obama and Iran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were 'influencing' a pending deal.
> 
> There is no prohibition within either the Constitution nor the Logan Act, regarding the actions of sitting and full-fledged and empowered and equal members OF the Government, undertaking such influential actions.
> 
> As to your 'position', well...
> 
> Your position, and that of a great many of your fellow countrymen, differ.
> 
> Your position, and that of the US Justice Department, will probably differ, as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't.  So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?" There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nobody but the Far Left loons are "pursuing" this Logan Act nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Letter is not a violation of the Logan Act.  Nor anything remotely close to it.  The suggestion by the cult that such is the case, is as ludicrous as their electing a Muslim-Marxist in the wake of the catastrophic failure of socialist policy, in the midst of a war with the cult of islam.
Click to expand...


As soon as this idiot writes that Obama is a socialist, Marxist Muslim, he joins the ranks of that lunatic lady that asked McCain if Obama was an Arab.....Wallow in your hatred moron......


----------



## Statistikhengst

hunarcy said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
Click to expand...



No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.


----------



## Statistikhengst

IlarMeilyr said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.
> 
> Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again nattwit.
> 
> In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler.  He sucks massively as President.  I detest his policies and policy inclinations.  I loathe his political philosophy.
> 
> But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
> So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.
Click to expand...



What was that again, Welcher?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

natwit, you witless twit, just because people disagree with your utterly baseless adoration of Obumbler does not mean that they are hate filled.

You seem to be, but that's another issue.


----------



## HenryBHough

nat4900 said:


> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?



So, you have some special qualification that allows you to regard a nation as an "enemy" when your own failed president obviously disagrees and is snuggling up to them?

Please tell us how one obtains such qualification.  Can you buy it from Amazon?  Maybe Alibaba?  Others might want one, too!

As to what's in the agreement.....why that's none of your or our business.  It's just like Obamacare - a secret until you approve it.  Uppity little bugger, ain'tcha?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
Click to expand...


For anybody to "insult" your intelligence, you would first have to have some intelligence, staty.


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.
> 
> Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again nattwit.
> 
> In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler.  He sucks massively as President.  I detest his policies and policy inclinations.  I loathe his political philosophy.
> 
> But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
> So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.
Click to expand...


Of course you can lie to me about how you feel, but lying to yourself is dangerous.....Live with your bigotry and, of course, have another cup of tea and wear your teabags with pride.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Statistikhengst said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.
> 
> Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again nattwit.
> 
> In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler.  He sucks massively as President.  I detest his policies and policy inclinations.  I loathe his political philosophy.
> 
> But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
> So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What was that again, Welcher?
Click to expand...


Poor staty, he has nothing intelligent or valid to say, so like the typical assbrain lolberal infesting USMB, he resorts to the dishonest "welsh" lie.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Faun said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A negotiated agreement with a foreign power is essentially a treaty. Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Essentially a treaty does not mean they all have to re ratified by the gasbags in the Senate.
> 
> Look it up, Cleetus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.
> 
> *When the Committee on Foreign Relations sends a treaty to the full Senate, the Senate considers whether to give its "advice and consent" or approval. That requires 67 votes, or two-thirds of the 100 Senators. The Senate may make its approval conditional by including in the consent resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, its own RUDS, or other statements.*
> 
> I just love it, Joe. You make it so easy to showcase your idiocy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for demonstrating that rogue band of 47 Senators violated the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You highlighted how "the Senate" has the power to advise and consent the president on treaties. 47 senators are not, "the Senate."
Click to expand...

Correct.

Nor does the Constitution authorize the Senate to attempt to preempt or interfere with the Executive's good faith efforts to negotiate treaties, which is exactly what the 47 republican dullards sought to do.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.
> 
> Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> wrong again nattwit.
> 
> In fact, I don't "hate" Obumbler.  He sucks massively as President.  I detest his policies and policy inclinations.  I loathe his political philosophy.
> 
> But he seems (all things political aside) like a nice enough human being.
> So stick your "advice" up your ass if you can move your head enough for it to fit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you can lie to me about how you feel, but lying to yourself is dangerous.....Live with your bigotry and, of course, have another cup of tea and wear your teabags with pride.
Click to expand...



No no.  I accept the fact that a brainless dishonest hack bitch like you will assume that his opponents are as bigoted and hate-filled as you are.  Your need to project is abundantly clear and your vapid opinions are as worthless as your _ad hominem_ form of "argument."


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> WTF are you talking about?


You've never heard that saying?

Why does a dog lick its balls?
Because it can!

The US has killed over 30,000,000 people around the world since WWII.
Why?  Because we can!  So I wouldn't talk about why others kill, when we have so much blood on our hands.



ChrisL said:


> Do you even know any more in your rabid defense of radical Islam?


Whatever knowledge I possess, is far above your ability to understand it.

You think its okay to shoot people fishing.



ChrisL said:


> Your stupidity is highlighted as if on an Obama billboard with a billion lights.    Lol.


I haven't supported Obama for 6 years now.

Got anymore dumbass statements?


----------



## hunarcy

Statistikhengst said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
Click to expand...


I could say that nothing could be an insult to your intelligence beyond how you behave, but I will point out that a "treaty" only takes affect upon approval by the Senate. The letter points that out and correctly says that any agreement that is not approved by the Senate does not have the weight of law and ONLY carries weight during the Presidency of the President that made the agreement and could be modified by a future President.   Perhaps the Republicans should have sent the letter to your side, as you seem unaware of that.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> You've never heard that saying?
> 
> Why does a dog lick its balls?
> Because it can!
> 
> The US has killed over 30,000,000 people around the world since WWII.
> Why?  Because we can!  So I wouldn't talk about why others kill, when we have so much blood on our hands.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know any more in your rabid defense of radical Islam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever knowledge I possess, is far above your ability to understand it.
> 
> You think its okay to shoot people fishing.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is highlighted as if on an Obama billboard with a billion lights.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't supported Obama for 6 years now.
> 
> Got anymore dumbass statements?
Click to expand...


^ The UTTERLY mindless ravings of shit for brain asshole cockbites like _*dildo really *_is on full display.


----------



## nat4900

Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> You've never heard that saying?
> 
> Why does a dog lick its balls?
> Because it can!
> 
> The US has killed over 30,000,000 people around the world since WWII.
> Why?  Because we can!  So I wouldn't talk about why others kill, when we have so much blood on our hands.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know any more in your rabid defense of radical Islam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever knowledge I possess, is far above your ability to understand it.
> 
> You think its okay to shoot people fishing.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is highlighted as if on an Obama billboard with a billion lights.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't supported Obama for 6 years now.
> 
> Got anymore dumbass statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ The UTTERLY mindless ravings of *shit for brain asshole cockbites like dildo really *is on full display.
Click to expand...


Ahhha, yet another right wing tea bagging, Shakespearean poet showing his "intelligence" and oratory skills..


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> Nor does the Constitution authorize the Senate to attempt to preempt or interfere with the Executive's good faith efforts to negotiate treaties, which is exactly what the 47 republican dullard sought to do.



The Constitution actually does... in the first amendment.  Being a Senator does not infringe upon one's write to speak, neither does it require one to sit idly by while the President of the US provides the means for those who ESTABLISHED THEMSELVES AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES, with the means to acquire Nuclear weapons.

See how that works?  The Constitution recognizes the self evident truth regarding the natural rights of man, and the 47 Americans in the Senate were exercising those rights.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.


Make our money pretty much worthless, and it takes a lot more of it to equal where we were before he started his economic lunacy.  The stock market going up doesn't translate into the economy as a whole doing well.  Our debt is a cancer and you assholes on the far left are too fucking stupid to see it and too dishonest to admit it anyway.  

The unemployment numbers are phony and you asshole lolberals refuse to accept that fact.  Stop counting all those who are not even trying to look for work anymore -- and by all means COUNT all the illegal aliens who have some relatively menial jobs -- and you too can make the unemployment numbers say almost whatever you want.  But it takes a special kind of douche bag (congrats, you made it) to BUY that horseshit.


----------



## Billo_Really

IlarMeilyr said:


> ^ The UTTERLY mindless ravings of shit for brain asshole cockbites like _*dildo really *_is on full display.


Shut up, bitch!  Did I give you permission to speak?


----------



## hunarcy

hunarcy said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.
Click to expand...


So, you're pleased that the rich have gotten richer and the Government has stopped counting the long term unemployed as if they don't matter any more?  Surprising, but ok.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> You've never heard that saying?
> 
> Why does a dog lick its balls?
> Because it can!
> 
> The US has killed over 30,000,000 people around the world since WWII.
> Why?  Because we can!  So I wouldn't talk about why others kill, when we have so much blood on our hands.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know any more in your rabid defense of radical Islam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever knowledge I possess, is far above your ability to understand it.
> 
> You think its okay to shoot people fishing.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is highlighted as if on an Obama billboard with a billion lights.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't supported Obama for 6 years now.
> 
> Got anymore dumbass statements?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^ The UTTERLY mindless ravings of *shit for brain asshole cockbites like dildo really *is on full display.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahhha, yet another right wing tea bagging, Shakespearean poet showing his "intelligence" and oratory skills..
Click to expand...


^ Asshole thinks a little invective is Shakepearean?

Damn, you mindless cockbite dishonest lolberals are stupid.  And pathetic.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Billo_Really said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ The UTTERLY mindless ravings of shit for brain asshole cockbites like _*dildo really *_is on full display.
> 
> 
> 
> Shut up, bitch!  Did I give you permission to speak?
Click to expand...


Dildo, I didn't give you permission to even live, yet here you are.  True, you are but a lower form of life and quite brainless, but here you are just the same.  Remind me to wipe my shoes, bitch.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
Click to expand...


It wasn't a threat... is was a solemn declaration of their intentions to scuttle any deal which provides that Iran; a nation WHICH LONG AGO ESTABLISHED ITSELF AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES, might acquire Nuclear Weapons.

Notice how the letter does not IN ANY WAY state that the Senate will not assend to any deal made by the President, which shuts down Iran's means to acquire Nuclear weapons.

YOU and the Cult want to pretend that the Senate is denying the Peasantpimp of the Union States the means to negotiate with foreign states... when in REALITY that is NOT WHAT THE LETTER SAID... .

The REALITY is that your cult is working to undermine the SECURITY of the United States and those 47 American were telling YOU and the Mullahs to shut the fuck up and sit down.

And I suggest ya do so... or we are going to kick the hell out of you.

Anything gettin' through here?


----------



## Billo_Really

IlarMeilyr said:


> Dildo, I didn't give you permission to even live, yet here you are.  True, you are but a lower form of life and quite brainless, but here you are just the same.  Remind me to wipe my shoes, bitch.


Have your pussy little Senators write me a letter, junior.


----------



## Billo_Really

IlarMeilyr said:


> ^ Asshole thinks a little invective is Shakepearean?
> 
> Damn, you mindless cockbite dishonest lolberals are stupid.  And pathetic.


Bush read two Shakespeare's!


----------



## nat4900

hunarcy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say that nothing could be an insult to your intelligence beyond how you behave, but I will point out that a "treaty" only takes affect upon approval by the Senate. The letter points that out and correctly says that any agreement that is not approved by the Senate does not have the weight of law *and ONLY carries weight during the Presidency of the President* that made the agreement and could be modified by a future President.   Perhaps the Republicans should have sent the letter to your side, as you seem unaware of that.
Click to expand...


Fine, the agreement ONLY carries weight during THIS presidency.....and since you stand as much of a chance of getting a right winger in the WH as my dog to receive a Nobel, your retort means what?????


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Billo_Really said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dildo, I didn't give you permission to even live, yet here you are.  True, you are but a lower form of life and quite brainless, but here you are just the same.  Remind me to wipe my shoes, bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> Have your pussy little Senators write me a letter, junior.
Click to expand...



Fuck yourself, dick lick.  Have your President negotiate with an enemy and pretend that logical right thinking Senators cannot rectify what that idiot is attempting to do.  Just so long as you know that it is "pretend."

The fact (which makes you cry and moan) is that the Senators in question (unlike your Obamessiah) are at least attempting to do right by this nation.  I know.  I know.  Shit suckers like you don't much care for America.  No wonder you long to go down on Obumbler.  

Get back to fucking yourself, ya worthless maggot.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Billo_Really said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Asshole thinks a little invective is Shakepearean?
> 
> Damn, you mindless cockbite dishonest lolberals are stupid.  And pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> Bush read two Shakespeare's!
Click to expand...


You speak fluent babble, ya dishonest worthless jiz sucking shit muncher.


----------



## hunarcy

nat4900 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say that nothing could be an insult to your intelligence beyond how you behave, but I will point out that a "treaty" only takes affect upon approval by the Senate. The letter points that out and correctly says that any agreement that is not approved by the Senate does not have the weight of law *and ONLY carries weight during the Presidency of the President* that made the agreement and could be modified by a future President.   Perhaps the Republicans should have sent the letter to your side, as you seem unaware of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, the agreement ONLY carries weight during THIS presidency.....and since you stand as much of a chance of getting a right winger in the WH as my dog to receive a Nobel, your retort means what?????
Click to expand...



That your argument is specious, false and only shows you never read the text of the letter.  Your outrage is based on nothing except your partisan ignorance.   And I hope your dog uses the funds from the Nobel committee wisely.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say that nothing could be an insult to your intelligence beyond how you behave, but I will point out that a "treaty" only takes affect upon approval by the Senate. The letter points that out and correctly says that any agreement that is not approved by the Senate does not have the weight of law *and ONLY carries weight during the Presidency of the President* that made the agreement and could be modified by a future President.   Perhaps the Republicans should have sent the letter to your side, as you seem unaware of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, the agreement ONLY carries weight during THIS presidency.....and since you stand as much of a chance of getting a right winger in the WH as my dog to receive a Nobel, your retort means what?????
Click to expand...


They GAVE a dog the Nobel, you idiot.


----------



## nat4900

hunarcy said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're pleased that the rich have gotten richer and the Government has stopped counting the long term unemployed as if they don't matter any more?  Surprising, but ok.
Click to expand...

,
Well then, will you  tell your right wing friends that since the rich have gotten richer, to call Obama a "Marxist-socialist" may be just a bit wrong?


----------



## Billo_Really

IlarMeilyr said:


> Fuck yourself, dick lick.  Have your President negotiate with an enemy and pretend that logical right thinking Senators cannot rectify what that idiot is attempting to do.  Just so long as you know that it is "pretend."
> 
> The fact (which makes you cry and moan) is that the Senators in question (unlike your Obamessiah) are at least attempting to do right by this nation.  I know.  I know.  Shit suckers like you don't much care for America.  No wonder you long to go down on Obumbler.
> 
> Get back to fucking yourself, ya worthless maggot.


Oh, the little war-monkey has something to say.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Dildo_Really said:
			
		

> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck yourself, dick lick.  Have your President negotiate with an enemy and pretend that logical right thinking Senators cannot rectify what that idiot is attempting to do.  Just so long as you know that it is "pretend."
> 
> The fact (which makes you cry and moan) is that the Senators in question (unlike your Obamessiah) are at least attempting to do right by this nation.  I know.  I know.  Shit suckers like you don't much care for America.  No wonder you long to go down on Obumbler.
> 
> Get back to fucking yourself, ya worthless maggot.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, the little war-monkey has something to say.
Click to expand...


Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.

Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say that nothing could be an insult to your intelligence beyond how you behave, but I will point out that a "treaty" only takes affect upon approval by the Senate. The letter points that out and correctly says that any agreement that is not approved by the Senate does not have the weight of law *and ONLY carries weight during the Presidency of the President* that made the agreement and could be modified by a future President.   Perhaps the Republicans should have sent the letter to your side, as you seem unaware of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, the agreement ONLY carries weight during THIS presidency.....and since you stand as much of a chance of getting a right winger in the WH as my dog to receive a Nobel, your retort means what?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They GAVE a dog the Nobel, you idiot.
Click to expand...


Yeah, yeah, Pavlov, really.....But that may be too much for you to differentiate......Check with Sean Hannity for clarity.


----------



## hunarcy

nat4900 said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're pleased that the rich have gotten richer and the Government has stopped counting the long term unemployed as if they don't matter any more?  Surprising, but ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ,
> Well then, will you  tell your right wing friends that since the rich have gotten richer, to call Obama a "Marxist-socialist" may be just a bit wrong?
Click to expand...


I have no problem with the rich getting richer, as a rising tide raises all boats and only your side thinks differently.  I have never called Obama a "Marxist-socialist".  So, now we're back to pointing out that you're pleased that the rich have gotten richer and the Government has stopped counting the long term unemployed as if they don't matter any more.  Not the attitude the Left admits to often.


----------



## Billo_Really

IlarMeilyr said:


> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.


You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!

You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say that nothing could be an insult to your intelligence beyond how you behave, but I will point out that a "treaty" only takes affect upon approval by the Senate. The letter points that out and correctly says that any agreement that is not approved by the Senate does not have the weight of law *and ONLY carries weight during the Presidency of the President* that made the agreement and could be modified by a future President.   Perhaps the Republicans should have sent the letter to your side, as you seem unaware of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fine, the agreement ONLY carries weight during THIS presidency.....and since you stand as much of a chance of getting a right winger in the WH as my dog to receive a Nobel, your retort means what?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They GAVE a dog the Nobel, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, Pavlov, really.....But that may be too much for you to differentiate......Check with Sean Hannity for clarity.
Click to expand...


No no, you idiot.  The dog was Obumbler.  He "earned" the Peace Prize. For real.  Well, he was awarded it.  "Earned" would be a kind of baseless claim.

Go check with Soros and hurry back to us, you idiot.


----------



## Lovebears65

here Senator Obama s 2008 Message To Iran Undermines Condemnation Of GOP Letter - Fox Nation


nat4900 said:


> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did the same to Bush in 2008 so yeah
> According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senatorsent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.
> 
> That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. His name was Barack Obama.Senator Obama s 2008 Message to Iran Undermines Condemnation of GOP Letter - Breitbart
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cites the likes of Breibart (may the devils wrest his soul) and no other than PAJAMAS Media......has to be either an idiot or......... (well, I'd repeat myself.)
> 
> These are the "sources" of right wing intelligentsia.....???
Click to expand...


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Billo_Really said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
Click to expand...


Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.  

Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.  

I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.

You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.

Now hurry back to fucking yourself.


----------



## nat4900

hunarcy said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.
> 
> Actually I DO have a problem with the rich getting so filthy rich that they can hire whores in congress to do their bidding.....(and that is my biggest problem with Obama)....However, it is YOUR ilk that bitches about the economy going to shits under Obama.....and label him a Marxist (don't believe me, check previous posts)...and regarding the unemployment rate, I sincerely do not know how really high it was under GWB, if you're now stating that the gauging is all wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you're pleased that the rich have gotten richer and the Government has stopped counting the long term unemployed as if they don't matter any more?  Surprising, but ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ,
> Well then, will you  tell your right wing friends that since the rich have gotten richer, to call Obama a "Marxist-socialist" may be just a bit wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with the rich getting richer, as a rising tide raises all boats and only your side thinks differently.  I have never called Obama a "Marxist-socialist".  So, now we're back to pointing out that you're pleased that the rich have gotten richer and the Government has stopped counting the long term unemployed as if they don't matter any more.  Not the attitude the Left admits to often.
Click to expand...


----------



## nat4900

Lovebears65 said:


> here Senator Obama s 2008 Message To Iran Undermines Condemnation Of GOP Letter - Fox Nation
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lovebears65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama did the same to Bush in 2008 so yeah
> According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in 2008, a Democratic senatorsent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.
> 
> That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. His name was Barack Obama.Senator Obama s 2008 Message to Iran Undermines Condemnation of GOP Letter - Breitbart
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who cites the likes of Breibart (may the devils wrest his soul) and no other than PAJAMAS Media......has to be either an idiot or......... (well, I'd repeat myself.)
> 
> These are the "sources" of right wing intelligentsia.....???
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


WOW, citing FOX, Pajamas Media and Breibart.......I stand corrected...LOL


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Billo_Really said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dildo, I didn't give you permission to even live, yet here you are.  True, you are but a lower form of life and quite brainless, but here you are just the same.  Remind me to wipe my shoes, bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> Have your pussy little Senators write me a letter, junior.
Click to expand...


Oh I love this...

One morning coming up pretty quick I expect, we're going to wake up to find that the Left's subversion has once again screwed us but good.

Now on 9-11-01, I sat there in my N.Y. Apartment, watching the dust rise out of Manhattan, the WTCs which were there that morning, gone... and I watched as the fomenters of Leftist guile did their best to pretend that they had absolutely NO PART in that destruction.

OH how they weeped and gnashed their collective tooth. 

I was in Yahoo's old Washington Watch room... a regular for many years at that time...

I remember like it was yesterday, trying to get my head around the unimaginable events of that day, and thinking about those same Leftists; who had LONG defended the Clinton Cult's moves to cut the CIA budget, passing policy that forbid them from hiring foreign resources with 'criminal records'.... all hotly contested policy over the preceding years... and I begin to type:
_
"Friends, Look around this room and see the idiots, all amazed that what they have so long fought to defend, has finally come to pass.  Today they're shocked that en enemy has struck us, which was made possible by 8 YEARS OF SUBVERSION, which ceaselessly promoted the interests of our enemies... remember back to '93 when they demanded that the Towers were bombed by CRIMINALS and how we said then that they were NOT criminals but warriors, determined to injure us in a prolonged and determined fight to destroy us, and the left laughed at the very idea of that notion, referred to it as INSANITY of the tinfoil hat variety.  

I tell you today, as the Pentagon burns, as thousands lay slaughtered in the streets of Manhattan, that we are only weeks, maybe months away, from watching the same idiots in here crying today, returning to defend our enemies... overtly siding with them, doing everything in their power to provide them aid and comfort... ."
_
OMG How they howled in OUTRAGE at that very suggestion.

But sure enough, within 18 months they were clambering to support the HUMAN SHIELDS in Iraq and 8 years later, with Osama Bin Laden still on the run and Saddam Hussein dead... they elected barack hussein obama as the President of the US and TODAY defend HIS RIGHT to PROVIDE IRAN WITH THE MEANS TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

So on that looming morning, I want you to know... that there will be no joining hands, there will be no 'we're all Americans'.

We, the Americans, will be AT WAR with the enemies of the United States, both Foreign and DOMESTIC.


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
Click to expand...


Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
Click to expand...


Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.


----------



## hunarcy

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
Click to expand...


If it doesn't allow Iran to develop a nuke, the Senate will ratify it and it will become a treaty, which will bind the United States.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

hunarcy said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it doesn't allow Iran to develop a nuke, the Senate will ratify it and it will become a treaty, which will bind the United States.
Click to expand...


Except the Presidunce is seeking to make it something OTHER THAN a treaty so that the Senate won't be able to either approve it or disapprove it.  And, of course, this is precisely why it is OK that the Senators wrote that letter.  God bless them.


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
Click to expand...


Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........

Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........
> 
> Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.
Click to expand...


As is usual with you ball-lacking pussy lolberals, you preach the inevitability of failure as an excuse not to even try.

LOTS of things could stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability.  Meekly allowing it after some inconsequential passage of time is NOT one of those things, you scum sucking asshole.


----------



## BlackSand

Premium Correspondence Stationary ... $2.78 a sheet.
Premium Parker Urban Fountain Pen ... $71.50.

A Letter to the Iranian Government while thumbing their noses at the President who has no trouble thumbing his own nose at Congress ... Just so a bunch of nut-case lefties can run to the support of the complete whack-job mullahs in charge of Iran ... Priceless.

.


----------



## hunarcy

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........
> 
> Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.
Click to expand...


So, you believe that Obama and Kerry are wasting their time trying to get an agreement to keep Iran from developing the bomb?  Have you let them know that?


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........
> 
> Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is usual with you ball-lacking pussy lolberals, you preach the inevitability of failure as an excuse not to even try.
> 
> LOTS of things could stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability.  Meekly allowing it after some inconsequential passage of time is NOT one of those things, you scum sucking asshole.
Click to expand...



I heard that prunes may help your condition.....


----------



## IlarMeilyr

hunarcy said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........
> 
> Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe that Obama and Kerry are wasting their time trying to get an agreement to keep Iran from developing the bomb?  Have you let them know that?
Click to expand...


Wait.  YOU seem to believe that Obumbler and Lurch are even TRYING to to get an agreement that would prevent Iran from EVER getting the capacity to make nuclear weapons?

Seriously?

Thrill us with your acumen.  Tell us how their public statements square with your "belief?"


----------



## eagle1462010

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf

2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............

The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).

The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.

While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................

Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............

Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.


----------



## Faun

hunarcy said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course they're allowed to disagree with the president. No one is arguing your strawman. What they are not allowed to do is to interfere with measures between the U.S. and foreign nations. That's a power delegated to the Senate, not individual members of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!  Really?
> 
> So the US Senate, AN EQUAL AND SEPARATE BRANCH OF THE US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, is NOT allowed to publicly profess their collective sentiment, which states in no uncertain terms that where the POTUS is  acting to promote the means of nations LONG ESTABLISHED AS BEING HOSTILE TO THE UNITED STATES TO SECURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS, that they will not assend to ANY agreement which provides for such?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> D E L U S I O N  . . . ON PARADE!
> 
> Proving once again that:
> 
> *THERE ARE NO LEFTIST AMERICANS!*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, nit wit, NO ONE is saying that congress is not allowed to disagree with the executive branch...NO ONE IS SAYING THAT!.
> 
> However, telling a foreign government (one that is regarded as an "enemy") that the president lacks the power to enter in an agreement (which is NOT a treaty) is moronic and confirms both the hatred toward Obama and the lack of understanding of the Constitution.
> 
> Besides all this DO YOU KNOW WHAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT...or are you simply reacting to what FOX told you to believe and think?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously you did not read the actual text of the letter.  NEVER does it say the President lacks the power to enter into an agreement.  Your knickers are in a twist over nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. The letter was a not so subtle threat to Iran that any treaty made would be undone by a possible GOP successor to Obama, which is not going to happen, anyway. Please do not insult our intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I could say that nothing could be an insult to your intelligence beyond how you behave, but I will point out that a "treaty" only takes affect upon approval by the Senate. The letter points that out and correctly says that any agreement that is not approved by the Senate does not have the weight of law and ONLY carries weight during the Presidency of the President that made the agreement and could be modified by a future President.   Perhaps the Republicans should have sent the letter to your side, as you seem unaware of that.
Click to expand...

You are mistaken on several levels. First of all, treaties do not "take effect" merely because the Senate approves them. The Senate does not ratify treaties. It can, however, approve a treaty which can then be ratified by the inclusive parties, should they wish to proceed.

You are also VERY mistaken to claim that a "presidential agreement" does not carry the full weight of the law. It is as lawfully binding as if the Senate had approved it. That is not the same as the Senate voting down on such a measure, which would express the Senate's disapproval.

As far as some future president altering or cancelling an existing treaty, that can happen, and has happened, to even Senate approved treaties. There is nothing special about a treaty the Senate does not vote on to approve.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make our money pretty much worthless, and it takes a lot more of it to equal where we were before he started his economic lunacy.  The stock market going up doesn't translate into the economy as a whole doing well.  Our debt is a cancer and you assholes on the far left are too fucking stupid to see it and too dishonest to admit it anyway.
> 
> The unemployment numbers are phony and you asshole lolberals refuse to accept that fact.  Stop counting all those who are not even trying to look for work anymore -- and by all means COUNT all the illegal aliens who have some relatively menial jobs -- and you too can make the unemployment numbers say almost whatever you want.  But it takes a special kind of douche bag (congrats, you made it) to BUY that horseshit.
Click to expand...

Speaking of unemployment numbers ... you never did reveal *your* source of unemployment numbers since you reject the BLS's...... Where do you get your statistics from...?


----------



## eagle1462010

Summing up the last post...............

The Senate and the Executive have shared powers under the Constitution............

Since Obama doesn't ask for the advice or Consent of the Senate they have the right to say FUCK YOU TOO OBAMA...............which is going on in this situation................

If Obama cuts a deal..................IT'S NOT BINDING.................He doesn't have the consent of the people on negotiating with a TERROR SUPPORTING COUNTRY.................

Therefore, he can shove his little hissy fit up his ass................TELL THE DOJ TO PROSECUTE...............DO IT............and it will END IN SCOTUS..............and will CHALLENGE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS to the Constitution ONCE AND FOR ALL..............

PLEASE DO SO.


----------



## nat4900

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make our money pretty much worthless, and it takes a lot more of it to equal where we were before he started his economic lunacy.  The stock market going up doesn't translate into the economy as a whole doing well.  Our debt is a cancer and you assholes on the far left are too fucking stupid to see it and too dishonest to admit it anyway.
> 
> The unemployment numbers are phony and you asshole lolberals refuse to accept that fact.  Stop counting all those who are not even trying to look for work anymore -- and by all means COUNT all the illegal aliens who have some relatively menial jobs -- and you too can make the unemployment numbers say almost whatever you want.  But it takes a special kind of douche bag (congrats, you made it) to BUY that horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of unemployment numbers ... you never did reveal *your* source of unemployment numbers since you reject the BLS's...... Where do you get your statistics from...?
Click to expand...


FOX, where else......LOL


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.


The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........
> 
> Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As is usual with you ball-lacking pussy lolberals, you preach the inevitability of failure as an excuse not to even try.
> 
> LOTS of things could stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon capability.  Meekly allowing it after some inconsequential passage of time is NOT one of those things, you scum sucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I heard that prunes may help your condition.....
Click to expand...


If you were to take a shit, shit head, the entire world would be swept away.  So stay away from prunes you massively full of shit idiot.


----------



## Rambunctious

Liberals are mentally ill, they would rather put their idiot offspring at risk of being nuked rather than call out their president when he is wrong. The man from Kenya is desperate for a legacy. So desperate that he will place us and Israel at risk.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
Click to expand...

47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............

They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................

Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............

The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........

Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.


----------



## Faun

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dildo, I didn't give you permission to even live, yet here you are.  True, you are but a lower form of life and quite brainless, but here you are just the same.  Remind me to wipe my shoes, bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> Have your pussy little Senators write me a letter, junior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I love this...
> 
> One morning coming up pretty quick I expect, we're going to wake up to find that the Left's subversion has once again screwed us but good.
> 
> Now on 9-11-01, I sat there in my N.Y. Apartment, watching the dust rise out of Manhattan, the WTCs which were there that morning, gone... and I watched as the fomenters of Leftist guile did their best to pretend that they had absolutely NO PART in that destruction.
> 
> OH how they weeped and gnashed their collective tooth.
> 
> I was in Yahoo's old Washington Watch room... a regular for many years at that time...
> 
> I remember like it was yesterday, trying to get my head around the unimaginable events of that day, and thinking about those same Leftists; who had LONG defended the Clinton Cult's moves to cut the CIA budget, passing policy that forbid them from hiring foreign resources with 'criminal records'.... all hotly contested policy over the preceding years... and I begin to type:
> _
> "Friends, Look around this room and see the idiots, all amazed that what they have so long fought to defend, has finally come to pass.  Today they're shocked that en enemy has struck us, which was made possible by 8 YEARS OF SUBVERSION, which ceaselessly promoted the interests of our enemies... remember back to '93 when they demanded that the Towers were bombed by CRIMINALS and how we said then that they were NOT criminals but warriors, determined to injure us in a prolonged and determined fight to destroy us, and the left laughed at the very idea of that notion, referred to it as INSANITY of the tinfoil hat variety.
> 
> I tell you today, as the Pentagon burns, as thousands lay slaughtered in the streets of Manhattan, that we are only weeks, maybe months away, from watching the same idiots in here crying today, returning to defend our enemies... overtly siding with them, doing everything in their power to provide them aid and comfort... ."
> _
> OMG How they howled in OUTRAGE at that very suggestion.
> 
> But sure enough, within 18 months they were clambering to support the HUMAN SHIELDS in Iraq and 8 years later, with Osama Bin Laden still on the run and Saddam Hussein dead... they elected barack hussein obama as the President of the US and TODAY defend HIS RIGHT to PROVIDE IRAN WITH THE MEANS TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
> 
> So on that looming morning, I want you to know... that there will be no joining hands, there will be no 'we're all Americans'.
> 
> We, the Americans, will be AT WAR with the enemies of the United States, both Foreign and DOMESTIC.
Click to expand...

Oh, please.  Clinton warned us an attack within our borders was highly likely, and the moronic right claimed he was making that up to get a domestic anti-terrorist team and to get America to forget about his impeachment trial.

Too bad the right wasn't on board. Their anti-Clinton vitriol caused them to take their eyes off the ball.


----------



## eagle1462010

2008 Candidate Senator Obama Sent U.S. Secret Emissary To Iran Telling Them Not To Negotiate With George Bush Said Wait For Him To Be Elected . The Last Refuge

It is a remarkable revelation given the level of apoplectic response recently from the White House and State Dept. to a rather innocuous “open letter” from 47 Senators.

President Obama, Joe Biden and John Kerry shouting about how wrong it is for the Senate to publish their opinion, yet it is now clear that Senator Obama not only communicated with the Iranian government in secret, but he did so specifically to undermine President George W. Bush during prior Iranian negotiations.

As Breitbart explains: […] Biden, like his boss, fails to do his homework before making outlandish statements or else chooses conveniently to overlook the facts.

Livid over the GOP letter, Biden proclaimed: “In thirty-six years in the United States Senate, I cannot recall another instance in which Senators wrote directly to advise another country.”

Directing his venom at the Senate’s Republican majority, Biden claimed the GOP letter was “expressly designed to undercut a sitting President in the midst of sensitive international negotiations…(an act) beneath the dignity of an institution I revere.”

Biden need not go back that far to find a senator who sent advice to a foreign power when similar “sensitive” negotiations were ongoing. Seven years back is far enough.

According to Pajamas Media columnist Michael Ledeen, in *2008, a Democratic senator sent a personal emissary to Tehran encouraging the mullahs not to sign an agreement with the outgoing Bush Administration as negotiations would take on a much friendlier tone following President Bush’s departure from office.*

That senator was a presidential candidate at the time. *His name was Barack Obama*. (read more)


----------



## eagle1462010

Obama has done the same thing that the 47 Senators have done...................Don't negotiate with Bush as I'll give you a better deal once I take office............................

and now BITCHES about the Senate doing the same thing he did already............

CRY ME A RIVER LIBS.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## nat4900

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
Click to expand...


Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement


----------



## nat4900

eagle1462010 said:


> Obama has done the same thing that the 47 Senators have done...................Don't negotiate with Bush as I'll give you a better deal once I take office............................
> 
> and now BITCHES about the Senate doing the same thing he did already............
> 
> CRY ME A RIVER LIBS.




STILL citing Breibart AND Pajamas Media for your source of "knowledge"?????


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
Click to expand...

47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."

They are citizens of the United States.

Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.

And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_

The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.


----------



## Faun

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........
> 
> Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.
Click to expand...

Even if Israel were to disarm every nuke in their possession, Iran will continue pursuing nuclear capabilities of their own.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
Click to expand...


Ag[]ain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions


nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
Click to expand...


Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.

As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.

As a semi-side note:  Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Summing up the last post...............
> 
> The Senate and the Executive have shared powers under the Constitution............
> 
> Since Obama doesn't ask for the advice or Consent of the Senate they have the right to say FUCK YOU TOO OBAMA...............which is going on in this situation................
> 
> If Obama cuts a deal..................IT'S NOT BINDING.................He doesn't have the consent of the people on negotiating with a TERROR SUPPORTING COUNTRY.................
> 
> Therefore, he can shove his little hissy fit up his ass................TELL THE DOJ TO PROSECUTE...............DO IT............and it will END IN SCOTUS..............and will CHALLENGE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS to the Constitution ONCE AND FOR ALL..............
> 
> PLEASE DO SO.


Total bullshit. Obama was given the consent of the people by being elected. There have been thousands of executive agreements made between the POTUS and foreign nations without the Senate voting on it.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Liberals are mentally ill, they would rather put their idiot offspring at risk of being nuked rather than call out their president when he is wrong. The man from Kenya is desperate for a legacy. So desperate that he will place us and Israel at risk.


 Riiiight ... we should care what brain-dead birfers have to _think_.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................

Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............

They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......

Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............

You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........

and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.

Deal with it.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
Click to expand...


*" Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding."

Executive agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Senate is correct in stating that we are not legally bound to this type of agreement. *


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Summing up the last post...............
> 
> The Senate and the Executive have shared powers under the Constitution............
> 
> Since Obama doesn't ask for the advice or Consent of the Senate they have the right to say FUCK YOU TOO OBAMA...............which is going on in this situation................
> 
> If Obama cuts a deal..................IT'S NOT BINDING.................He doesn't have the consent of the people on negotiating with a TERROR SUPPORTING COUNTRY.................
> 
> Therefore, he can shove his little hissy fit up his ass................TELL THE DOJ TO PROSECUTE...............DO IT............and it will END IN SCOTUS..............and will CHALLENGE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS to the Constitution ONCE AND FOR ALL..............
> 
> PLEASE DO SO.
> 
> 
> 
> Total bullshit. Obama was given the consent of the people by being elected. There have been thousands of executive agreements made between the POTUS and foreign nations without the Senate voting on it.
Click to expand...

And none of the thousands are Legally binding under the Constitution.

We signed a Treaty with Taiwan........Mutual defense Treaty..................Carter made an Executive Agreement against the Treaty............to negotiate with Iran................The Treaty was NEVER AMENDED............The Treaty is still in effect......................His Agreement can be undone via the next President that cares to do so...............

Because neither are binding under the Constitution.


----------



## Lakhota

Iran understands our Constitution better than most NaziCons.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some facts ARE facts.....(as shown below)...So, when criticism of Obama still persists even from nitwits who have benefited from his policies......only ONE other reason remains.....and if right wingers on here were a bit more honest...they'd admit to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make our money pretty much worthless, and it takes a lot more of it to equal where we were before he started his economic lunacy.  The stock market going up doesn't translate into the economy as a whole doing well.  Our debt is a cancer and you assholes on the far left are too fucking stupid to see it and too dishonest to admit it anyway.
> 
> The unemployment numbers are phony and you asshole lolberals refuse to accept that fact.  Stop counting all those who are not even trying to look for work anymore -- and by all means COUNT all the illegal aliens who have some relatively menial jobs -- and you too can make the unemployment numbers say almost whatever you want.  But it takes a special kind of douche bag (congrats, you made it) to BUY that horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of unemployment numbers ... you never did reveal *your* source of unemployment numbers since you reject the BLS's...... Where do you get your statistics from...?
Click to expand...


^ A MAJOR pathetic (albeit an attempted "deft") change of topic technique.  Exactly what I expect from a fauny like you.


----------



## eagle1462010

Antares said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *" Executive agreements are considered politically binding to distinguish them from treaties which are legally binding."
> 
> Executive agreement - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The Senate is correct in stating that we are not legally bound to this type of agreement. *
Click to expand...

YEP..................Absolutely correct..................

That's that funny little document called the Constitution that the left tries to piss on all the time..............

Good post.  I AGREE...........


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> ...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...


I said the signatory Senators did *NOT* attempt to influence the negotiations?

Show me... link please.

I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.


> ...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...


I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?

Show me... link please.

I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted *WITH* "..._the authority of the United States_...".



> ...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.


The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, and its upper chamber - the Senate.

As I said before, they already *HAVE* the 'authority of the United States'.

Why?

Because they *ARE* the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.

That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.

Game. Set. Match.

Next contestant, please.


----------



## natstew

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now ^ Dildo accuses others of being "war monkeys" (as if that term had any connection to anything under actual discussion) when he doesn't know diddly dog about their positions on almost ANY matter.
> 
> Damn.  For stupid, you are the poster child, dildo.  You MUST be a lib.
> 
> 
> 
> You're trying to get everyone on the planet killed, so go fuck yourself!
> 
> You wanna start a war with Iran, which will put us in direct military confrontation with Russia.  And a war with Russia, will end all life on planet earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........
> 
> Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.
Click to expand...


You same gutless wonders were screaming and crying that Reagan was getting us into a war with the Soviet Union while you shit your pants!


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agfain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.
> 
> As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.
> 
> As a semi-side note:  Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"
Click to expand...

 Why do I have to repeat this over and over? Is no one on he right capable of understanding this??

47 members of the Senate is *not* "the Senate."

Maybe you should have that tattooed across your forehead. But don't get it done backwards, you certainly don't want to be as stupid as this brain-dead rightie, whose own stupidity was revealed because she used a mirror to carve a backwards 'B' on her own face....

McCain supporter maimed for her politics by robber Update Hoax Hot Air


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Faun said:


> You are mistaken on several levels. First of all, treaties do not "take effect" merely because the Senate approves them. The Senate does not ratify treaties. It can, however, approve a treaty which can then be ratified by the inclusive parties, should they wish to proceed.
> 
> You are also VERY mistaken to claim that a "presidential agreement" does not carry the full weight of the law. It is as lawfully binding as if the Senate had approved it. That is not the same as the Senate voting down on such a measure, which would express the Senate's disapproval.
> 
> As far as some future president altering or cancelling an existing treaty, that can happen, and has happened, to even Senate approved treaties. There is nothing special about a treaty the Senate does not vote on to approve.



An Executive Treaty is merely an agreement between two heads of states... _'You do this and I'll do that'.
_
Which is perfectly fine in most circumstances, wherein the Executive is actually loyal to the Nation, whose principles, he supposedly represents.

In the United States, a Constitutional Republic... this loyalty status is usually maintained by the Constitutional requirement that the Chief Executive be a "Natural Born Citizen of the United States".

Sadly, the US being long since infected with a perversion of human reasoning, which rationalizes that Foreign Ideas Hostile to American Principle act as a balance against the recognition and defense of and adherence to the Principles that define America... a popular swell provided that a person who is _NOT_ a _Natural Born Citizen_ of the United States was elected Chief Executive.

The reason that the US Constitution precludes native born individuals NOT born in the natural consequence of two citizen parents, OKA: A Natural Born Citizen... is that where a person is born to a Foreign National, there exist an axiomatic split loyalty.  We know this to be true in obama's case, in that he took the extra-measure of actually pretending to write a book, wherein his ghost writer extolls the virtues of Communism, a deviant species of human reasoning which is decidedly hostile to American Principle.

Therein, and through the history of his administrative cult, in lending aid and comfort through the shifting of policy to the benefit of those of demonstrated hostility to the United States, having consistently promoted the interests of the enemies of the United States, to the point that International Islamic Terrorism is today, in VASTLY better shape than it was on 9-11-01.  Meaning that obama has reversed 8 years of US effort to degrade the means of Islam to wage war and in particular, to wage war against the United States.

And it is in THAT, which reasonable US Citizens, OKA: Americans, KNOW that where the issue is an Islamic enemy of the United States and their acquisition of Nuclear weapons, and the question is, _"What will obama do?", _the reasonable answer is that he will promote their means to do so.

Therefore... the 47 Americans in the Senate, did what NO ONE ELSE IN US FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WERE WILLING TO DO: They stood up and publicly denounced policy discussions which are destructive to the Security of the United States.

Meaning that obama made the most feckless governing body on the planet, into something, which when compared to him...  APPEAR TO BE PURVEYORS OF UNERRING LEADERSHIP!

Possibly for the first time in the history of the United States Senate... they took a firm position in the face of a highly destructive executive subversive.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Faun said:


> 47 members of the Senate is *not* "the Senate."



True... But they are the only Americans in the Senate, so it effectively works out the same.


----------



## HenryBHough

Here we all thought Obama believed he was the new Jesus Christ.

But it turns out he was just Judas Junior.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agfain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.
> 
> As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.
> 
> As a semi-side note:  Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do I have to repeat this over and over? Is no one on he right capable of understanding this??
> 
> 47 members of the Senate is *not* "the Senate."
> 
> Maybe you should have that tattooed across your forehead. But don't get it done backwards, you certainly don't want to be as stupid as this brain-dead rightie, whose own stupidity was revealed because she used a mirror to carve a backwards 'B' on her own face....
> 
> McCain supporter maimed for her politics by robber Update Hoax Hot Air
Click to expand...


Why DO you repeat that worthless inane meaningless babble?

I dunno.  Maybe you're just as fucking stupid as you come across.

Let's help you out.  You need it.  Clearly.

47 members of the Senate is not the Senate.  Check.  Nobody said otherwise.  Check.

But, to ratify a fucking treaty, it would take the super-majority of the Senate.  When Obumbler does an end run around that Constitutional treaty provision by trying to frame the "negotiations" as merely a proposed "executive agreement," then the Senators (individual Senators) have as much right to write a letter to the shitbirds in Iran as anybody else.  Maybe more.  And when THEY speak, individually or as a group, they ARE addressing the interests of the United States AS part of the GOVERNMENT of the United States.

Damn, but you are one fucking dishonest stupid hack bitch, Fauny.


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................
> 
> Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............
> 
> They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......
> 
> Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............
> 
> You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........
> 
> and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.
> 
> Deal with it.
Click to expand...

 Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:

_He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​ 
47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.


----------



## natstew

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama has done the same thing that the 47 Senators have done...................Don't negotiate with Bush as I'll give you a better deal once I take office............................
> 
> and now BITCHES about the Senate doing the same thing he did already............
> 
> CRY ME A RIVER LIBS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> STILL citing Breibart AND Pajamas Media for your source of "knowledge"?????
Click to expand...


FNC, the most reliable and honest source of news.


----------



## Kondor3

nat4900 said:


> ...B.S. (as usual) Obama has not lost the "trust of congress" BECAUSE HE NEVER HAD IT from right wing bigots in congress. From the very first week of his inauguration, right wingers met and swore to do everything to undermine his administration......What really pissed you guys on here and idiots like McConnell, is that Obama had the nerve to get RE-ELECTED.....Live with it.


Blah, blah, blah... endless phukking blah... excuses for poor performance, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

Your Failed Messiah had two (2) years with a Democratic majority in both House *AND* Senate, and a majority in the Senate for *FOUR* years.

And, in his own words, he got a "shellacking" in the 2010 mid-terms, when he lost the House, just as, in the 2014 mid-terms, he got *ANOTHER* 'shellacking' when he lost the Senate, as well.

When The People vote you into office, then, slowly but surely, erode your legislative base, that screams '_loss of confidenc_e' or '_loss of trust_' to most *sane* folks.

You can attribute that to his shoving ObamaCare down the throat of the nation, his presiding over the interim victory of the Gay Mafia, his days-after-midterms Imperial Decree on Immigration-Shamnesty, and now, his squabbles with our good friend and ally, Israel, and his Neville Chamberlain -esque approach to dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The President has, indeed, lost the confidence and trust of much of the Congress and much of The People, just as I've said.

All the automatic gainsay and excuse-making in the world notwithstanding.

This sorry state of affairs speaks volumes to both an increasing resistance to the Liberal Agenda and the inability of Liberals to take a good, hard look in the mirror.

Your loss.

Sorry.

The country will soon be done with your, for another decade or so, once we get past January 20, 2017.

You've had your chance.

You failed to deliver.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................
> 
> Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............
> 
> They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......
> 
> Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............
> 
> You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........
> 
> and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
Click to expand...


No shit, shithead.  And the negotiations are not (allegedly) for a "treaty" either, you imbecile.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agfain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.
> 
> As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.
> 
> As a semi-side note:  Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do I have to repeat this over and over? Is no one on he right capable of understanding this??
> 
> 47 members of the Senate is *not* "the Senate."
> 
> Maybe you should have that tattooed across your forehead. But don't get it done backwards, you certainly don't want to be as stupid as this brain-dead rightie, whose own stupidity was revealed because she used a mirror to carve a backwards 'B' on her own face....
> 
> McCain supporter maimed for her politics by robber Update Hoax Hot Air
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why DO you repeat that worthless inane meaningless babble?
> 
> I dunno.  Maybe you're just as fucking stupid as you come across.
> 
> Let's help you out.  You need it.  Clearly.
> 
> 47 members of the Senate is not the Senate.  Check.  Nobody said otherwise.  Check.
> 
> But, to ratify a fucking treaty, it would take the super-majority of the Senate.  When Obumbler does an end run around that Constitutional treaty provision by trying to frame the "negotiations" as merely a proposed "executive agreement," then the Senators (individual Senators) have as much right to write a letter to the shitbirds in Iran as anybody else.  Maybe more.  And when THEY speak, individually or as a group, they ARE addressing the interests of the Untied States AS part of the GOVERNMENT of the United States.
> 
> Damn, but you are one fucking dishonest stupid hack bitch, Fauny.
Click to expand...

Nobody said otherwise?? Are you baked or are you in a coma... It's been stated repeatedly. Here's but one example ...

_"47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS.............. They can AMEND any TREATY.............."_​


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agfain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.
> 
> As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.
> 
> As a semi-side note:  Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do I have to repeat this over and over? Is no one on he right capable of understanding this??
> 
> 47 members of the Senate is *not* "the Senate."
> 
> Maybe you should have that tattooed across your forehead. But don't get it done backwards, you certainly don't want to be as stupid as this brain-dead rightie, whose own stupidity was revealed because she used a mirror to carve a backwards 'B' on her own face....
> 
> McCain supporter maimed for her politics by robber Update Hoax Hot Air
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why DO you repeat that worthless inane meaningless babble?
> 
> I dunno.  Maybe you're just as fucking stupid as you come across.
> 
> Let's help you out.  You need it.  Clearly.
> 
> 47 members of the Senate is not the Senate.  Check.  Nobody said otherwise.  Check.
> 
> But, to ratify a fucking treaty, it would take the super-majority of the Senate.  When Obumbler does an end run around that Constitutional treaty provision by trying to frame the "negotiations" as merely a proposed "executive agreement," then the Senators (individual Senators) have as much right to write a letter to the shitbirds in Iran as anybody else.  Maybe more.  And when THEY speak, individually or as a group, they ARE addressing the interests of the Untied States AS part of the GOVERNMENT of the United States.
> 
> Damn, but you are one fucking dishonest stupid hack bitch, Fauny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody said otherwise?? Are you baked or are you in a coma... It's been stated repeatedly. Here's but one example ...
> 
> _"47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS.............. They can AMEND any TREATY.............."_​
Click to expand...


No.  I'm not baked.  YOU are just  a stupid dishonest hack bitch.  Normally, when you quote something, it's to prove up a point. 

YOUR quote doesn't even come close to proving YOUR vapid point, you moron.

So again, for the terminally retarded (i.e., you):  A super-majority is not required to ratify a NON treaty which is WHY the asshole in the Oval Office seeks to reach an "Executive Agreement" that will not give the Senate the ability to dis-approve what would be a treaty.

And if it's not going to be a treaty, then the Senators are free to yak at the shitsucking asshole leaders of Iran to let that scumbag lot know that Congress can undo the damage as can any future President.  Obumbler tries an end run and then fumes when they call bullshit on the bullshitter.

You have much in common with the Void in Chief.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................
> 
> Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............
> 
> They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......
> 
> Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............
> 
> You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........
> 
> and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
Click to expand...

You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............

and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.


----------



## Kondor3

Statistikhengst said:


> ...Thank you for proving the OP to be correct. For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.


Nonsense.

We are not in a declared war against Iran.

We are not in an undeclared war against Iran.

We are not engaged in warlike military operations against Iran, under the aegis of the War Powers Act nor any other.

No warfare-caliber hostilities exist between the United States and Iran.

No Cold War military build-up -caliber operations exist, directed against Iran, beyond a modest real-time presence on its periphery, and considerable surveillance efforts.

We have not declared Iran to be our mortal enemy.

Iran has declared the United States to be The Great Satan and its mortal enemy.

A one-sided definition of a relationship.

Iran is, indeed, our mortal enemy, in practice.

Iran is not our enemy in any respect, at-law.

Consequently, the pallor of '_giving aid and comfort to the enemy_' does not apply.

Consequently, your allegations do not meet the legal requirements for 'treason' as specified by the Constitution of the United States; not even a Cold War -like scenario.

Fail.

But thank you for playing.

"_Johnny, what do we have by way of a consolation prize for this good sport _?"

Next contestant, please.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> ... For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.



You truly are an imbecile.  

You should know that >_USING YOUR REASONING_< obama committed treason.  

Which is no big deal, considering that he has done so repeatedly... but if you're a supporter of the cult, you should probably read more and post less.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> We have options available with sanctions. The only thing is that we have to get Russia and China to agree to it. THAT is the difficult part. However, since they are both recipients of millions if not BILLIONS of dollars in aid from the United States, we have leverage.



Uh, no, they aren't.  

China is the recipient of billions in trade the big corporations are sending over there, but it's not like we're going to give those jobs to AMERICANS.  Don't be daft.  

We are already punishing Russia over the Ukraine and then expecting their cooperation on Iran.  They won't go along with that shit a lot longer.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...
> 
> 
> 
> I said the signatory Senators did *NOT* attempt to influence the negotiations?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.
Click to expand...

 
*Kondor3:* _The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations._

*Faun:* _Really? Then what do you think this means ...? "with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,"_

*kondor3: *_Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...*without the authority of the United States*..."_



Kondor3 said:


> ...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...
> 
> 
> 
> I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted *WITH* "..._the authority of the United States_...".
Click to expand...

I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.



Kondor3 said:


> ...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
> 
> 
> 
> The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.
Click to expand...

The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.



Kondor3 said:


> As I said before, they already *HAVE* the 'authority of the United States'.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they *ARE* the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.


As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that. 



Kondor3 said:


> That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
> 
> Next contestant, please.


Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, _"game, set, match"_  self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> I did, asshat. Perhaps you should inform yourself before being so quick to call someone who has actually read the Constitution of being uninformed.
> 
> *Senate Consideration and "Advice and Consent"*
> With the treaty package in hand, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee can begin its consideration. It can vote to send the treaty to the full Senate for action, with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation, or even without any recommendation at all; it can also decide to ignore the treaty entirely. However, if the Committee fails to act on the treaty, it is not returned to the President. Treaties, unlike other legislative measures, remain available to the Senate from one Congress to the next, until they are actively disposed of or withdrawn by the President.



Well, gush durn there, Cleetus, Presidents reach binding agreements with other countries all the time there, durp, durp.  For instance, SALT II was never ratified by Congress, but Presidents Carter and Reagan lived up to its terms.


----------



## JoeB131

rhodescholar said:


> That was my post earlier, that the liberal chimps want to disarm you and take away your guns - since they do not believe in MAD on a personal level - but for nations the concept of MAD works well...



ON a personal level, most of you are too self Destructive. That's why we don't put Cleetus and Billy Bob in charge of the nukes.


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.



Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Kondor3 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Thank you for proving the OP to be correct. For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> We are not in a declared war against Iran.
> 
> We are not in an undeclared war against Iran.
> 
> We are not engaged in warlike military operations against Iran, under the aegis of the War Powers Act nor any other.
> 
> No warfare-caliber hostilities exist between the United States and Iran.
> 
> No Cold War military build-up -caliber operations exist, directed against Iran, beyond a modest real-time presence on its periphery, and considerable surveillance efforts.
> 
> We have not declared Iran to be our mortal enemy.
> 
> Iran has declared the United States to be The Great Satan and its mortal enemy.
> 
> A one-sided definition of a relationship.
> 
> Iran is, indeed, our mortal enemy, in practice.
> 
> Iran is not our enemy in any respect, at-law.
> 
> Consequently, the pallor of '_giving aid and comfort to the enemy_' does not apply.
> 
> Consequently, your allegations do not meet the legal requirements for 'treason' as specified by the Constitution of the United States; not even a Cold War -like scenario.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> But thank you for playing.
> 
> "_Johnny, what do we have by way of a consolation prize for this good sport _?"
> 
> Next contestant, please.
Click to expand...


If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president,

would you be defending the Democrats?


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agfain, you fauny, the Senate as whole can ratify of disavow treaties but if Obumbler's actions
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Furthermore, some of the sanctions language requires Congressional authorizations.
> 
> As I said, this is a treaty which Obumbler chooses not to call a treaty to do an end run around the Constitutional ratification authority of the Senate.
> 
> As a semi-side note:  Did you and your ilk ever ponder what the PURPOSE of the Congressional notification is for "Executive agreements?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do I have to repeat this over and over? Is no one on he right capable of understanding this??
> 
> 47 members of the Senate is *not* "the Senate."
> 
> Maybe you should have that tattooed across your forehead. But don't get it done backwards, you certainly don't want to be as stupid as this brain-dead rightie, whose own stupidity was revealed because she used a mirror to carve a backwards 'B' on her own face....
> 
> McCain supporter maimed for her politics by robber Update Hoax Hot Air
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why DO you repeat that worthless inane meaningless babble?
> 
> I dunno.  Maybe you're just as fucking stupid as you come across.
> 
> Let's help you out.  You need it.  Clearly.
> 
> 47 members of the Senate is not the Senate.  Check.  Nobody said otherwise.  Check.
> 
> But, to ratify a fucking treaty, it would take the super-majority of the Senate.  When Obumbler does an end run around that Constitutional treaty provision by trying to frame the "negotiations" as merely a proposed "executive agreement," then the Senators (individual Senators) have as much right to write a letter to the shitbirds in Iran as anybody else.  Maybe more.  And when THEY speak, individually or as a group, they ARE addressing the interests of the Untied States AS part of the GOVERNMENT of the United States.
> 
> Damn, but you are one fucking dishonest stupid hack bitch, Fauny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody said otherwise?? Are you baked or are you in a coma... It's been stated repeatedly. Here's but one example ...
> 
> _"47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS.............. They can AMEND any TREATY.............."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No.  I'm not baked.  YOU are just  a stupid dishonest hack bitch.  Normally, when you quote something, it's to prove up a point.
> 
> YOUR quote doesn't even come close to proving YOUR vapid point, you moron.
> 
> So again, for the terminally retarded (i.e., you):  A super-majority is not required to ratify a NON treaty which is WHY the asshole in the Oval Office seeks to reach an "Executive Agreement" that will not give the Senate the ability to dis-approve what would be a treaty.
> 
> And if it's not going to be a treaty, then the Senators are free to yak at the shitsucking asshole leaders of Iran to let that scumbag lot know that Congress can undo the damage as can any future President.  Obumbler tries an end run and then fumes when they call bullshit on the bullshitter.
> 
> You have much in common with the Void in Chief.
Click to expand...

They are not free to "yak" any such thing, you imbecile.

_*Any citizen* of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority of the United States*, *directly or indirectly commences* or carries on *any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures or conduct* of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, *in relation to any disputes or controversies* with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States*, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both._​ 
Show me where that applies only to treaties?


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Germany agreed to terms of surrender. It was not about race, idiot.
> 
> The rest of of your post is asinine. Russia did have some effect, but the timing of Japan's capitulation the day after the bombing of Nagasaki indicates to any sane person what ended hostilities.



Except Japan didn't capitulate the same Day.  The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on August 9. Japan didn't surrender until August 15th.  The fact that the Soviets, who entered the war on August 8, were rapidly sweeping through Manchuria had a profound effect on their thinking. 



Ernie S. said:


> Japan was allowed to keep the Emperor as a figure head but as of VJ day Douglas MacArthur became supreme leader of Japan.



But again, that WASN'T our agreement at Potsdam.  Our agreement was unconditional surrender with no pre-conditions.  Then suddenly, when we saw the Russians sweeping into Manchuria and Korea and possibly Japan itself, we just loved us some Hirohito.  Totally forgot about all the war crimes he committed and everything. 



Ernie S. said:


> These are not sane rational people we are trying to contain. The repeatedly vow to wipe Israel off the map and drop a nuke on Washington. They no more capable of the responsibility of having a nuclear device that a homicidal maniac is capable of the rational use of a firearm.
> Again, asshat. You are so easy.



Guy, frankly, Iran's position is PERFECTLY rational.  Countries with atomic weapons don't get invaded. Atomic weapons assure your national sovereignty.  The fact is they've never threatened to nuke Washington (they don't have the capability anyway).  Nor is it likely they'd nuke Israel and contaminate all those sites Islam considers holy.


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................
> 
> Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............
> 
> They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......
> 
> Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............
> 
> You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........
> 
> and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
Click to expand...

 I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.

I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...
> 
> 
> 
> I said the signatory Senators did *NOT* attempt to influence the negotiations?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Kondor3:* _The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations._
> 
> *Faun:* _Really? Then what do you think this means ...? "with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,"_
> 
> *kondor3: *_Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...*without the authority of the United States*..."_
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted *WITH* "..._the authority of the United States_...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, they already *HAVE* the 'authority of the United States'.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they *ARE* the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
> 
> Next contestant, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, _"game, set, match"_  self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.
Click to expand...

The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.

That gives them all the legal cover they'll ever need.

Are you right in this, or am I?

The way to tell, is to see whether indictments are brought against those Senators by the US Department of Justice.

If indictments materialize, you win.

If indictments do not materialize, I win.

Any thoughts on which position the Smart Money in Vegas would be betting on?


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> 
> 
> 47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................
> 
> Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............
> 
> They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......
> 
> Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............
> 
> You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........
> 
> and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
Click to expand...

You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............


----------



## Faun

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
Click to expand...

Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Come on guys!  Don't be shy.  What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through?  Don't avoid the question.



what will happen.  Not much of anything. Our own intelligence indicates Iran is five years from the bomb.  Russia and China will start trading with Iran again, treaty or no treaty.  

The Zionists will whine and bitch and scream, but they don't have the will or the ability to strike Iran.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.
Click to expand...

and how does that apply to this...................They explained about the Constitution and that any agreement without the Senate isn't binding............

Thank you and have a nice day.............They have that right and authority...........period.


----------



## JoeB131

Faun said:


> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.



Well, he needs to ask holder to swear out an indictment for treason against Cotton and friends, then. 

Oh wait, he's not going to do that?  Because that's some shit a dictator would do?  

Then he needs to stop the fuck whining about it.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

NYcarbineer said:


> If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president, would you be defending the Democrats?



If the Democrats had done it, THEY would have written a Letter which PROMISED that they would scuttle the deal to PREVENT IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Which, if such were during a time of war, as is the case today, THAT would actually BE Treason.

But I just want to say, that you idiots can't understand the DIFFERENCE is *PRICELESS!*


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys!  Don't be shy.  What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through?  Don't avoid the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what will happen.  Not much of anything. Our own intelligence indicates Iran is five years from the bomb.  Russia and China will start trading with Iran again, treaty or no treaty.
> 
> The Zionists will whine and bitch and scream, but they don't have the will or the ability to strike Iran.
Click to expand...

Mostly correct............or the sites would have already be destroyed............But we do have the ability to do so...........


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should.



Presidents have reached agreements with other countries for decades without Congress ratifying them.   

Is this another case of "It's okay until the black guy does it?"  Because you all seem to suffer from that a lot.


----------



## Kondor3

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Thank you for proving the OP to be correct. For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> We are not in a declared war against Iran.
> 
> We are not in an undeclared war against Iran.
> 
> We are not engaged in warlike military operations against Iran, under the aegis of the War Powers Act nor any other.
> 
> No warfare-caliber hostilities exist between the United States and Iran.
> 
> No Cold War military build-up -caliber operations exist, directed against Iran, beyond a modest real-time presence on its periphery, and considerable surveillance efforts.
> 
> We have not declared Iran to be our mortal enemy.
> 
> Iran has declared the United States to be The Great Satan and its mortal enemy.
> 
> A one-sided definition of a relationship.
> 
> Iran is, indeed, our mortal enemy, in practice.
> 
> Iran is not our enemy in any respect, at-law.
> 
> Consequently, the pallor of '_giving aid and comfort to the enemy_' does not apply.
> 
> Consequently, your allegations do not meet the legal requirements for 'treason' as specified by the Constitution of the United States; not even a Cold War -like scenario.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> But thank you for playing.
> 
> "_Johnny, what do we have by way of a consolation prize for this good sport _?"
> 
> Next contestant, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president,
> 
> would you be defending the Democrats?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with which poster is closer to being right, with respect to the commission of treason?

But, as a sidebar, and since you asked...

I vote Pub some years, and Dem others.

I voted for Obumble in both 2008 and 2012, because I disliked what I saw of McSame and Mittens, even worse than what I disliked about Obumble.

But I held my nose in the voting booth, both times, and had Buyer's Remorse immediately afterwards, both times.

I voted partially for Dems and partially for Pubs outside the Presidential race in virtually every election (general and mid-terms) since I reached the age to vote.

If I see a Pub President trying to sell the Nation or its People down the river without a paddle, I'll join in the chorus of protests, myself.

And, if a bunch of Dems did something like this to a Pub President who was selling us down the river (or playing Neville Chamberlain), then, yes, I'd like to believe that I would defend a gaggle of Dem Senators under such circumstances, as well.

Dunno fer shure, 'cause I've never witnessed such a thing, but I'd like to think so.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president, would you be defending the Democrats?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the Democrats had done it, THEY would have written a Letter which PROMISED that they would scuttle the deal to PREVENT IRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
> 
> Which, if such were during a time of war, as is the case today, THAT would actually BE Treason.
> 
> But I just want to say, that you idiots can't understand the DIFFERENCE is *PRICELESS!*
Click to expand...


I think you're in the wrong thread or responding to the wrong post.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.



How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?






Pictured- some crazy shit right there.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...
> 
> 
> 
> I said the signatory Senators did *NOT* attempt to influence the negotiations?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Kondor3:* _The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations._
> 
> *Faun:* _Really? Then what do you think this means ...? "with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,"_
> 
> *kondor3: *_Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...*without the authority of the United States*..."_
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted *WITH* "..._the authority of the United States_...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, they already *HAVE* the 'authority of the United States'.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they *ARE* the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
> 
> Next contestant, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, _"game, set, match"_  self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.
> 
> That gives them all the legal cover they'll ever need.
> 
> Are you right in this, or am I?
> 
> The way to tell, is to see whether indictments are brought against those Senators by the US Department of Justice.
> 
> If indictments materialize, you win.
> 
> If indictments do not materialize, I win.
> 
> Any thoughts on which position the Smart Money in Vegas would be betting on?
Click to expand...

Complete nonsense. Lack of indictments mean no such thing. There can be political reasons for why indictments are not forthcoming, should that be the case, other than because no law was violated.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.
Click to expand...

Ahhhhh... but there's the rub... no US law was violated.


----------



## Kondor3

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
Click to expand...

The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.

One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.

Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................
> 
> Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............
> 
> They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......
> 
> Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............
> 
> You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........
> 
> and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
Click to expand...

... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.

But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...
> 
> 
> 
> I said the signatory Senators did *NOT* attempt to influence the negotiations?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Kondor3:* _The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations._
> 
> *Faun:* _Really? Then what do you think this means ...? "with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,"_
> 
> *kondor3: *_Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...*without the authority of the United States*..."_
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted *WITH* "..._the authority of the United States_...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, they already *HAVE* the 'authority of the United States'.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they *ARE* the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
> 
> Next contestant, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, _"game, set, match"_  self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.
> 
> That gives them all the legal cover they'll ever need.
> 
> Are you right in this, or am I?
> 
> The way to tell, is to see whether indictments are brought against those Senators by the US Department of Justice.
> 
> If indictments materialize, you win.
> 
> If indictments do not materialize, I win.
> 
> Any thoughts on which position the Smart Money in Vegas would be betting on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete nonsense. Lack of indictments mean no such thing. There can be political reasons for why indictments are not forthcoming, should that be the case, other than because no law was violated.
Click to expand...

Indictments are all that signify.

Everything else is background noise.


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and how does that apply to this...................They explained about the Constitution and that any agreement without the Senate isn't binding............
> 
> Thank you and have a nice day.............They have that right and authority...........period.
Click to expand...

I asked this before ... who granted them any such right?


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
Click to expand...


It isn't crazy to them and THAT'S what matters.

To them creating global chaos is doing the will of Allah


----------



## Billo_Really

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Oh I love this...
> 
> One morning coming up pretty quick I expect, we're going to wake up to find that the Left's subversion has once again screwed us but good.
> 
> Now on 9-11-01, I sat there in my N.Y. Apartment, watching the dust rise out of Manhattan, the WTCs which were there that morning, gone... and I watched as the fomenters of Leftist guile did their best to pretend that they had absolutely NO PART in that destruction.
> 
> OH how they weeped and gnashed their collective tooth.
> 
> I was in Yahoo's old Washington Watch room... a regular for many years at that time...
> 
> I remember like it was yesterday, trying to get my head around the unimaginable events of that day, and thinking about those same Leftists; who had LONG defended the Clinton Cult's moves to cut the CIA budget, passing policy that forbid them from hiring foreign resources with 'criminal records'.... all hotly contested policy over the preceding years... and I begin to type:
> _
> "Friends, Look around this room and see the idiots, all amazed that what they have so long fought to defend, has finally come to pass.  Today they're shocked that en enemy has struck us, which was made possible by 8 YEARS OF SUBVERSION, which ceaselessly promoted the interests of our enemies... remember back to '93 when they demanded that the Towers were bombed by CRIMINALS and how we said then that they were NOT criminals but warriors, determined to injure us in a prolonged and determined fight to destroy us, and the left laughed at the very idea of that notion, referred to it as INSANITY of the tinfoil hat variety.
> 
> I tell you today, as the Pentagon burns, as thousands lay slaughtered in the streets of Manhattan, that we are only weeks, maybe months away, from watching the same idiots in here crying today, returning to defend our enemies... overtly siding with them, doing everything in their power to provide them aid and comfort... ."
> _
> OMG How they howled in OUTRAGE at that very suggestion.
> 
> But sure enough, within 18 months they were clambering to support the HUMAN SHIELDS in Iraq and 8 years later, with Osama Bin Laden still on the run and Saddam Hussein dead... they elected barack hussein obama as the President of the US and TODAY defend HIS RIGHT to PROVIDE IRAN WITH THE MEANS TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
> 
> So on that looming morning, I want you to know... that there will be no joining hands, there will be no 'we're all Americans'.
> 
> We, the Americans, will be AT WAR with the enemies of the United States, both Foreign and DOMESTIC.


You might be a lot of things, but one thing you are not, is an American.

You have more in common with the folks in Weimar, Germany, than you do with this country.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does Cletus, that's how our Government works....well if one intends to run it as the Constitution says we should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presidents have reached agreements with other countries for decades without Congress ratifying them.
> 
> Is this another case of "It's okay until the black guy does it?"  Because you all seem to suffer from that a lot.
Click to expand...


Executive Actions are not legally binding, they are only POLITICALLY binding, it's just that simple.

Given that fact the US can walk away from it any time we want to.

The Senators simply informed Iran of that fact.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................
> 
> Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............
> 
> They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......
> 
> Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............
> 
> You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........
> 
> and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
Click to expand...

They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............

aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............

and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............

We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
Click to expand...



Even the first amendment has limits, based on this organization for whom you work. Screaming "fire" in a theater full of people when in reality there is no fire is also free speech, but clearly illegal and carries a penalty with it.

If those GOPers had had brains in their heads at the time, they never would have signed such a stupid letter to begin with.

And just because you THINK you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely WRONG............They can DENY A TREATY................
> 
> Because it takes 2/3rd's of the Senate to RATIFY ONE...................So YES THEY CAN DENY a treaty.............
> 
> They are Citizens DULY ELECTED to REPRESENT the Citizens of their State...............So, they are speaking for MANY CITIZENS.......
> 
> Binding in International Law..............We have the Constitution.............our Laws are created and enforced here...........Not in the EU>...............we have NO OBLIGATION under our laws to OBEY a Political agreement between Obama and Iran...........Unless he FOLLOWS THE CONSTITUTION and RATIFIES A TREATY............
> 
> You have no leg to stand on............They have every right to be a part of International agreements under the Constitution..........
> 
> and OBAMA DID THE SAME DANG THING TO BUSH.
> 
> Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
Click to expand...

They acted within the framework of an ad hoc Senate committee, staffed by members of a single party, under the aegis of the Senate.

They are mostly lawyers and Constitutional S(ubject) M(atter) E(xperts) themselves, and have other SME's to advise them, and they can certainly conjure-up the necessary authorization within such an ad hoc committee framework, any time they like. They thought this through, long before you and I ever got wind of it. That's why they're not worried, and why you-and-yours are having an apoplexy fit, that you cannot touch them on this one. But it's one heckuva comedy show that you guys are putting on.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you're saying they did influence it though you just said they weren't...
> 
> 
> 
> I said the signatory Senators did *NOT* attempt to influence the negotiations?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I think you have me confused with any of a variety of other posters whose opinions differ from your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Kondor3:* _The Constitution is silent with respect to the ability of Congress to *INFLUENCE* treaty negotiations._
> 
> *Faun:* _Really? Then what do you think this means ...? "with intent to *influence* the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof,"_
> 
> *kondor3: *_Quite correct. The escape-hatch on this one, however, is... "...*without the authority of the United States*..."_
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...So now you change your position to that it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a "pending deal?"...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said it didn't violate the Logan Act because it was a 'pending deal'?
> 
> Show me... link please.
> 
> I said that there was no violation of the Logan Act because the Senators acted *WITH* "..._the authority of the United States_...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was asking you if you changed your position from being they could influence a treaty to one of they can influence pending deal.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...There is nothing in the Logan Act limiting "measures or conduct" to finalized deals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Logan Act is silent with respect to influencing activity on the part of the United States Congress, nor its upper chamber - the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Logan Act is quite clear actually ... it applies to all citizens who do not have authority. And while the Senate as whole does have authority, individual members of the Senate do not.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said before, they already *HAVE* the 'authority of the United States'.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because they *ARE* the Government of the United States - or, more specifically, one of the co-equal three major branches of the US Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As a body they are, not as individual Senators. It's not my problem you can't comprehend that.
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why there will be no indictments nor sanctions nor censure.
> 
> Game. Set. Match.
> 
> Next contestant, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since your argument is not based in reality, but some bizarre notion that a group of Senators are given the same authority as the Senate as a whole, your, _"game, set, match"_  self-congratulatory victory dance is rather laughable. It is very likely nothing will come of this in legal terms, but certainly not for the issues you raise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Senators acted under the aegis of Senatorial Functionality.
> 
> That gives them all the legal cover they'll ever need.
> 
> Are you right in this, or am I?
> 
> The way to tell, is to see whether indictments are brought against those Senators by the US Department of Justice.
> 
> If indictments materialize, you win.
> 
> If indictments do not materialize, I win.
> 
> Any thoughts on which position the Smart Money in Vegas would be betting on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete nonsense. Lack of indictments mean no such thing. There can be political reasons for why indictments are not forthcoming, should that be the case, other than because no law was violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indictments are all that signify.
> 
> Everything else is background noise.
Click to expand...

Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment,  prove Obama didn't break the law?


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and how does that apply to this...................They explained about the Constitution and that any agreement without the Senate isn't binding............
> 
> Thank you and have a nice day.............They have that right and authority...........period.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked this before ... who granted them any such right?
Click to expand...

The Constitution Article II..........you may read the Federalist papers section 75 if you want Hamilton's explanation.............................

It is a dual job...........unless you are lib that doesn't care about the Constitution and our laws...............as you completely ignore that Obama did the same dang thing.


----------



## Billo_Really

IlarMeilyr said:


> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.


Whether or not Iran wants to get a nuke, is none of your fucking business, asshole.  You don't decide how others should live their lives on their own property.

If you think you can, come on over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my roof and see what happens next.  I will personally show you just how wrong that ideology is.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhhh... but there's the rub... no US law was violated.
Click to expand...

Your opinion is noted.


----------



## JoeB131

Kondor3 said:


> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.



Again, your hero, George W. Stupid, invaded Iraq and killed hundreds of thousands of people because God told him to.  Not seeing how his belief in sky fairies is any less "bloodthristy" than theirs.


----------



## eagle1462010

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even the first amendment has limits, based on this organization for whom you work. Screaming "fire" in a theater full of people when in reality there is no fire is also free speech, but clearly illegal and carries a penalty with it.
> 
> If those GOPers had had brains in their heads at the time, they never would have signed such a stupid letter to begin with.
> 
> And just because you THINK you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.
Click to expand...

I agree with it...................

If Obama doesn't want to allow the full branch of Gov't in on the process, then quite frankly he can go to hell..............

He's attempting to sign a 10 year deal for the United States with Iran..........including lifting some sanctions if Iran plays nice...............

They will not play nice and any person who thinks they'll honor it is a fool.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JoeB131 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he needs to ask holder to swear out an indictment for treason against Cotton and friends,
Click to expand...



So you want holder to just pretend that 'the law' defines treason as openly defying the policy of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH?  

ROFLMNAO!

Oh lordy... THAT is ADORABLE!

Ladies and gentlemen, what you witnessed above is what is known as Relativism. 

Ya see, Reader, relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.

It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* that is essential to truth.  

And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.

Now what you know what Relativism is and what it does, hopefully you know how dangerous it is and why it is that the same perversion of reasoning is what demands that demonstrably deviant sexual behavior is _perfectly normal, _that there is a RIGHT to murder their pre-born children and that paying people to not work is fair to those who's property is confiscated to pay them, and that somehow, this will stimulate them to seek employment.

For those keeping score, that instinct your feeling is correct... what your seeing there is the manifestation of what is OKA: _Evil._


----------



## eagle1462010

Billo_Really said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not Iran wants to get a nuke, is none of your fucking business, asshole.  You don't decide how others should live their lives on their own property.
> 
> If you think you can, come on over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my roof and see what happens next.  I will personally show you just how wrong that ideology is.
Click to expand...

Have you been yelling at me from next door calling me the Great Satan and telling me that Allah wills me to die...............

In this country we have laws against threatening our neighbors and their lives..............as you would have to be building shit to kill your neighbor......

Are you building shit to kill your neighbors..............to pay for someone else to kill them...aka terrorist................

Bad example.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Executive Actions are not legally binding, they are only POLITICALLY binding, it's just that simple.
> 
> Given that fact the US can walk away from it any time we want to.
> 
> The Senators simply informed Iran of that fact.



Yeah, but we won't.  

Let's say we get an agreement that Iran puts off it's nuclear development for 10 years, and we lift sanctions and other countries lift their sanctions.  

And then let's say the country elects Scott Walker.  I like Scott Walker and and might even vote for him if he doesn't do anything crazy between now and November 2016.   So it's 2017, the Iranians are living up to their end of the agreement, and Scott decides, 'Hey, that agreement Obama reached with Iran was bullocks." 

So, yeah, I guess he could unilaterally re-impose the Presidential sanctions against Iran and give them lease to go back to making nukes.  But do you really think Germany, France, England, Russia and China are going to go along with that shit?  I doubt it.


----------



## JoeB131

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, he needs to ask holder to swear out an indictment for treason against Cotton and friends,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you want holder to just pretend that 'the law' defines treason as openly defying the policy of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH?
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> Oh lordy... THAT is ADORABLE!
> 
> Ladies and gentlemen, what you witnessed above is what is known as Relativism.
> 
> Ya see, Reader, relativism is the doctrine which holds that knowledge, truth, and morality exist only in relation to one's cultural, societal, historical and personal context, and, as such can never be the result of soundly reasoned absolutes.
> 
> It is through this, perversion of reason, wherein relativism axiomatically rejects the *objectivity* that is essential to truth.
> 
> And with truth being essential to trust and, _both of those_ being critical to the establishment of a soundly reasoned morality, and because a soundly reasoned morality is essential to Justice... it becomes clear to reasonable people, that Relativism can never serve justice.
> 
> Now what you know what Relativism is and what it does, hopefully you know how dangerous it is and why it is that the same perversion of reasoning is what demands that demonstrably deviant sexual behavior is _perfectly normal, _that there is a RIGHT to murder their pre-born children and that paying people to not work is fair to those who's property is confiscated to pay them, and that somehow, this will stimulate them to seek employment.
> 
> For those keeping score, that instinct your feeling is correct... what your seeing there is the manifestation of what is OKA: _Evil._
Click to expand...


Hey, dipshit, I was agreeing with you guys that the 47 weren't committing treason... but never mind.


----------



## Kondor3

Billo_Really said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not Iran wants to get a nuke, is none of your fucking business, asshole.  You don't decide how others should live their lives on their own property.
> 
> If you think you can, come on over to my house and try to tell me what's what under my roof and see what happens next.  I will personally show you just how wrong that ideology is.
Click to expand...


Wow... the little wanker wants to play _Internet Tough Guy_...

Are we all now appropriately frightened and cowed?






Whether a dogmatic, martyrdom-encouraging theocracy gets a nuclear weapon or not is *EVERY* _sane man's_ business.

Which explains why that hasn't occurred to you.

Given that you are neither 'sane' nor holding a place at the grownup's table amongst actual men who have _earned_ that title.

Now, back to the Kiddie Table with you... you're bothering the grownups.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Executive Actions are not legally binding, they are only POLITICALLY binding, it's just that simple.
> 
> Given that fact the US can walk away from it any time we want to.
> 
> The Senators simply informed Iran of that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but we won't.
> 
> Let's say we get an agreement that Iran puts off it's nuclear development for 10 years, and we lift sanctions and other countries lift their sanctions.
> 
> And then let's say the country elects Scott Walker.  I like Scott Walker and and might even vote for him if he doesn't do anything crazy between now and November 2016.   So it's 2017, the Iranians are living up to their end of the agreement, and Scott decides, 'Hey, that agreement Obama reached with Iran was bullocks."
> 
> So, yeah, I guess he could unilaterally re-impose the Presidential sanctions against Iran and give them lease to go back to making nukes.  But do you really think Germany, France, England, Russia and China are going to go along with that shit?  I doubt it.
Click to expand...


I don't care what the other Nations do, I care what we do.


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> Even the first amendment has limits, based on this organization for whom you work. Screaming "fire" in a theater full of people when in reality there is no fire is also free speech, but clearly illegal and carries a penalty with it.
> 
> If those GOPers had had brains in their heads at the time, they never would have signed such a stupid letter to begin with.
> 
> And just because you THINK you can do a thing doesn't mean you should.



Oh, i think signing the letter was stupid, but so is obama rushing to get a treaty so that he can say he got a treaty.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> I don't care what the other Nations do, I care what we do.



You should care what other nations do. Other nations told us invading Iraq was a really, really stupid idea and they didn't go along with it. 

It turned out to be a really stupid, stupid idea.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
Click to expand...

This is peaceful, is it?

_One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JoeB131 said:


> But again, that WASN'T our agreement at Potsdam.  Our agreement was unconditional surrender with no pre-conditions.  Then suddenly, when we saw the Russians sweeping into Manchuria and Korea and possibly Japan itself, we just loved us some Hirohito.  Totally forgot about all the war crimes he committed and everything.



You're an imbecile.

Intercepted Japanese Communications the day of the first bomb, indicated that surrendered was being strongly urged.  Responses to those suggestions indicated that hardliners were using the the unconditional phrasing to suggest that the Emperor would be removed from power, using that as a means to stave off capitulation.  Truman decided to revise the terms and close the deal... his hunch paid off.  That the Soviets would pushing down on Japan was certainly a consideration, but cities evaporating into thin air... brought the truth home in irrepressible terms.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
Click to expand...

Does any of that feature Jesus of Nazareth teaching his followers to commit violence or to engage in warfare in defense or advancing of The Faith?


----------



## Dot Com

Republicans are like the children that refuse to believe they lost. They lost the Presidential election but act AS IF they didn't.

When they win they win but when they lose they win as well. Odd that.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
Click to expand...

Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................

End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............

I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.

And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care what the other Nations do, I care what we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should care what other nations do. Other nations told us invading Iraq was a really, really stupid idea and they didn't go along with it.
> 
> It turned out to be a really stupid, stupid idea.
Click to expand...


LOL!  What nations were those?  And please dial out the irrelevant (Socialist) examples here >()<.  Don't be intimidated by all the extra space.

(Reader, enjoy this excruciatingly short list to come.)


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
Click to expand...

The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?


----------



## Dot Com

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
Click to expand...

when he has an (R) behind his name.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
Click to expand...

Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. The US Senate does NOT have the right to influence treaty negotiations, esp this way, past the water's edge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last tme I checked, there was still a first amendment and they still had every right to express their opinions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not if it violates U.S. law. An individual does not have First Amendment rights to scream fire in a theater because doing so would also violate U.S. law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhhh... but there's the rub... no US law was violated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your opinion is noted.
Click to expand...

As is your own.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> ...Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment,  prove Obama didn't break the law?


Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.

My apologies.

I concede the point.

The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.

But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.

----------------------------

Oh, and, by the way...

I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...

I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.


----------



## JoeB131

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> LOL! What nations were those? And please dial out the irrelevant (Socialist) examples here >()<. Don't be intimidated by all the extra space.
> 
> (Reader, enjoy this excruciatingly short list to come.)



France. Germany. Canada. Russia. China. Italy. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Egypt.  

In fact, very few or our allies joined us on this stupidity, and the ones who did voted out the fools who did it.  As did we, come to think of it.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I deny "the Senate" can deny a treaty? I said a coalition of 47 Senators, outside the scope of the Senate, cannot. The Constitution reads:
> 
> _He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur......_​
> 47% is not 2/3rds of the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They acted within the framework of an ad hoc Senate committee, staffed by members of a single party, under the aegis of the Senate.
> 
> They are mostly lawyers and Constitutional S(ubject) M(atter) E(xperts) themselves, and have other SME's to advise them, and they can certainly conjure-up the necessary authorization within such an ad hoc committee framework, any time they like. They thought this through, long before you and I ever got wind of it. That's why they're not worried, and why you-and-yours are having an apoplexy fit, that you cannot touch them on this one. But it's one heckuva comedy show that you guys are putting on.
Click to expand...

Despite the expertise you paint them with, they still got a fundamental part of the letter wrong. The letter idiotically claims the Senate ratifies treaties. 

_First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote._​
They do not ratify treaties. They reject or approve of ratification. If such a resolution is passed, only then can ratification occur between the nations involved.

Guess Cotton, who I believe is the Junior Senator to draft the letter, doesn't quite know the Constitution as well as you seem to think.


----------



## Kondor3

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................
> 
> End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............
> 
> I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.
> 
> And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.
Click to expand...

Typical atheist/agnostic (usually Lib-Prog) faux moral equivalency, in an attempt to draw attention away from the true Bad Guys (Militant Muslims) in all of this.


----------



## BlackSand

Faun said:


> Oh, please.  Clinton warned us an attack within our borders was highly likely, and the moronic right claimed he was making that up to get a domestic anti-terrorist team and to get America to forget about his impeachment trial.
> 
> Too bad the right wasn't on board. Their anti-Clinton vitriol caused them to take their eyes off the ball.



If President Clinton was half the President Barrack Obama is ... He would have just done it all on his own.

.


----------



## eagle1462010

eagle1462010 said:


>


reposting the letter...............for clarity.........as it states the Senate and Congress are part of the process of ratification........................as a poster is splitting hairs on final ratification is the countries signing .....................which is true BTW.............


----------



## HenryBHough

So the narcissism hasn't progressed to the point where He simply disbands Congress.

Imagine how much a little medication might help.........perhaps even save the country!

But it'd have to be force-fed and that would be torture.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny the Treaty in your other post unless you have edited since then...............
> 
> and I'm telling you they can DENY it, because you don't have the votes for ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They acted within the framework of an ad hoc Senate committee, staffed by members of a single party, under the aegis of the Senate.
> 
> They are mostly lawyers and Constitutional S(ubject) M(atter) E(xperts) themselves, and have other SME's to advise them, and they can certainly conjure-up the necessary authorization within such an ad hoc committee framework, any time they like. They thought this through, long before you and I ever got wind of it. That's why they're not worried, and why you-and-yours are having an apoplexy fit, that you cannot touch them on this one. But it's one heckuva comedy show that you guys are putting on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite the expertise you paint them with, they still got a fundamental part of the letter wrong. The letter idiotically claims the Senate ratifies treaties.
> 
> _First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote._​
> They do not ratify treaties. They reject or approve of ratification. If such a resolution is passed, only then can ratification occur between the nations involved.
> 
> Guess Cotton, who I believe is the Junior Senator to draft the letter, doesn't quite know the Constitution as well as you seem to think.
Click to expand...

Is not the issuance of Advice and Consent, by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate, a ratification process?

We dally with semantics here.

Most of us merely slip into the traditional shorthand notation for the '_advice and consent_' process which is tantamount to the same thing.

A ratification by any other name is still a ratification.

We all have better things to do than to take side trips to Semantics Land,when the functional equivalent is sufficient for everyone's purposes, and has adequate support within the realm of custom and usage, to permit a little variation in the damned verbiage presented to foreigners, yes?


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does any of that feature Jesus of Nazareth teaching his followers to commit violence or to engage in warfare in defense or advancing of The Faith?
Click to expand...

No, but it does indicate what they're expecting, even hoping, to have happen when Jesus returns and what they can avoid by being faithful. And it's not peaceful. Just like how Islam prophecy claims similar cataclysmic events upon the arrival of the 12th Imam.


----------



## Vigilante

*Fallout from senators’ Iran letter: Tom Cotton for president?*

McClatchy DC ^
WASHINGTON — While a soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tom Cotton wielded some of the military’s most sophisticated firearms. Today it’s letters that appear to be Sen. Cotton’s weapon of choice.....


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................
> 
> End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............
> 
> I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.
> 
> And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.
Click to expand...

Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?


----------



## BlackSand

Kondor3 said:


> Is not the issuance of Advice and Consent, by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate, a ratification process?
> 
> We dally with semantics here.
> 
> Most of us merely slip into the traditional shorthand notation for the 'advice and consent' process which is tantamount to the same thing.
> 
> A ratification by any other name is still a ratification.
> 
> We all have better things to do than to take side trips to Semantics Land,when the functional equivalent is sufficient for everyone's purposes, and has adequate support within the realm of custom and usage, to permit a little variation in the damned verbiage presented to foreigners, yes?



It really all depends on what the meaning of "is" is ... And "what difference does it make"?
If you like your "advise and consent" you can keep your "advise and consent".

.


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
Click to expand...

You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................
> 
> End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............
> 
> I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.
> 
> And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?
Click to expand...

The topic isn't about Religion............

It's about a letter to Iran..................the TOPIC...............how about you stay on that topic.


----------



## Antares

Dot Com said:


> Republicans are like the children that refuse to believe they lost. They lost the Presidential election but act AS IF they didn't.
> 
> When they win they win but when they lose they win as well. Odd that.



Um need I point it out hat your side has taken a horrific beating for 3 elections now?


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment,  prove Obama didn't break the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I concede the point.
> 
> The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.
> 
> But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> Oh, and, by the way...
> 
> I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...
> 
> I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. Let's see if we can reduce this to the smallest possible denominator. Here is the Logan Act ... Other than whether or not they have the authority to do what they did, do you see any other portions that were not violated...

_
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. _

18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute​


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................
> 
> End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............
> 
> I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.
> 
> And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical atheist/agnostic (usually Lib-Prog) faux moral equivalency, in an attempt to draw attention away from the true Bad Guys (Militant Muslims) in all of this.
Click to expand...

You're wrong yet again -- I'm neither atheist nor agnostic. Try harder!


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> 
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.
Click to expand...

So now you mind read.............are you ............





They are part of the Senate and a very large part.................and as our representatives they have the RIGHT TO SAY..........................

OBAMA...........KNOCK THE BS OFF............as they are part of this country and Gov't as well...............

As you again ignore that Obama did the same danged thing......................That topic sucks doesn't it.


----------



## Vigilante

*White House Begs GOP to Drop Tough Stance on Iran Nuclear Deal*

breitbart.com ^ | 3/15/15
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough wrote a letter on Saturday night to Senator Bob Corker (and the rest of the U.S. Congress) on behalf of the President regarding the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran. In the letter, he demands that the U.S. Senate — which has constitutional authority in treaty making — must step back and let the White House navigate the diplomatic realm with Tehran. The White House argues that the deal is facing imminent collapse because the Congress, by continuing to promote sanctions against the terror regime, will supposedly push Iran’s “hardliners” over the edge and...


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never said the Senate can't reject a treaty nor did I alter any post to that correct that since I never said it.
> 
> I have said the 47 Senators cannot unilaterally reject a treaty. Doing so requires a vote in the Senate where all 100 Senators can vote on such a measure.
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They acted within the framework of an ad hoc Senate committee, staffed by members of a single party, under the aegis of the Senate.
> 
> They are mostly lawyers and Constitutional S(ubject) M(atter) E(xperts) themselves, and have other SME's to advise them, and they can certainly conjure-up the necessary authorization within such an ad hoc committee framework, any time they like. They thought this through, long before you and I ever got wind of it. That's why they're not worried, and why you-and-yours are having an apoplexy fit, that you cannot touch them on this one. But it's one heckuva comedy show that you guys are putting on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Despite the expertise you paint them with, they still got a fundamental part of the letter wrong. The letter idiotically claims the Senate ratifies treaties.
> 
> _First, under our Constitution, while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote._​
> They do not ratify treaties. They reject or approve of ratification. If such a resolution is passed, only then can ratification occur between the nations involved.
> 
> Guess Cotton, who I believe is the Junior Senator to draft the letter, doesn't quite know the Constitution as well as you seem to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is not the issuance of Advice and Consent, by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate, a ratification process?
> 
> We dally with semantics here.
> 
> Most of us merely slip into the traditional shorthand notation for the '_advice and consent_' process which is tantamount to the same thing.
> 
> A ratification by any other name is still a ratification.
> 
> We all have better things to do than to take side trips to Semantics Land,when the functional equivalent is sufficient for everyone's purposes, and has adequate support within the realm of custom and usage, to permit a little variation in the damned verbiage presented to foreigners, yes?
Click to expand...

It's part of the process and if approved, can certainly lead to ratification, but the Senate itself does not ratify treaties. And you can call it semantics if that makes you feel better, but Senator Cotton got it wrong. The Senate does not ratify treaties.


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................
> 
> End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............
> 
> I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.
> 
> And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The topic isn't about Religion............
> 
> It's about a letter to Iran..................the TOPIC...............how about you stay on that topic.
Click to expand...

Tell that to your fellow righites. They're the ones who injected religion into this.

So again I ask ... since you didn't answer ... Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?


----------



## Antares

BlackSand said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please.  Clinton warned us an attack within our borders was highly likely, and the moronic right claimed he was making that up to get a domestic anti-terrorist team and to get America to forget about his impeachment trial.
> 
> Too bad the right wasn't on board. Their anti-Clinton vitriol caused them to take their eyes off the ball.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If President Clinton was half the President Barrack Obama is ... He would have just done it all on his own.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Obama is not even half the man Valerie Jarrett is.


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you mind read.............are you ............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are part of the Senate and a very large part.................and as our representatives they have the RIGHT TO SAY..........................
> 
> OBAMA...........KNOCK THE BS OFF............as they are part of this country and Gov't as well...............
> 
> As you again ignore that Obama did the same danged thing......................That topic sucks doesn't it.
Click to expand...

I'm not reading minds -- I'm repeating back to you what you're saying.


----------



## Vigilante

In the US, the treaty power is a coordinated effort between the Executive branch and the Senate. The President may form and negotiate, but the treaty must be advised and consented to by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Only after the Senate approves the treaty can the President ratify it. Once a treaty is ratified, it becomes binding on all the states under the Supremacy Clause. While the United States House of Representatives does not vote on it at all, the requirement for Senate advice and consent to ratification makes it considerably more difficult in the US than in other democratic republics to rally enough political support for international treaties. Also, if implementation of the treaty requires the expenditure of funds, the House of Representatives may be able to block, or at least impede, such implementation by refusing to vote for the appropriation of the necessary funds.

In the US, the President usually submits a treaty to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) along with an accompanying resolution of ratification or accession. If the treaty and resolution receive favorable committee consideration (a committee vote in favor of ratification or accession) the treaty is then forwarded to the floor of the full U.S. Senate for such a vote. The treaty or legislation does not apply until it has been ratified. A multilateral agreement may provide that it will take effect upon its ratification by less than all of the signatories.[2] Even though such a treaty takes effect, it does not apply to signatories that have not ratified it. Accession has the same legal effect as ratification. Accession is a synonym for ratification for treaties already negotiated and signed by other states.[3] An example of a treaty to which the U.S. Senate did not advise and consent to ratification is the Treaty of Versailles, which failed to garner support due to inclusion of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

The U.S. can also enter into international agreements by way of executive agreements. These are not made under the Treaty Clause, and do not require ratification of two thirds of the Senate. "Congressional-executive agreements" are passed by a majority of both houses of Congress as a regular law. If the agreement is completely within the President's constitutional powers, it can be made by the President alone without Congressional approval; however, it will have the force of an executive order and can be unilaterally revoked by a future President. All of these types of agreements are treated internationally as "treaties". See Foreign policy of the United States#Law.


----------



## BlackSand

Antares said:


> Obama is not even half the man Valerie Jarrett is.



That would explain a lot since she is of Iranian descent.

.


----------



## Antares

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> 
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................
> 
> End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............
> 
> I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.
> 
> And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The topic isn't about Religion............
> 
> It's about a letter to Iran..................the TOPIC...............how about you stay on that topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to your fellow righites. They're the ones who injected religion into this.
> 
> So again I ask ... since you didn't answer ... Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?
Click to expand...


Because they are not the same thing, in one instance (Islamic) they believe they are ushering in Allah's Kingdom here on earth......the other (Christianity) they are suffering the wrath of the ones doing the ushering.

I find it all very fascinating.


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is indeed a Theocracy.
> Their leaders are 12'vers meaning that that believe that THEY can usher in the 12th Imam who will rule the World through them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................
> 
> End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............
> 
> I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.
> 
> And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?
Click to expand...




Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any crazier than Christians who believe in the Rapture and the Second Coming Of Jesus?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pictured- some crazy shit right there.
> 
> 
> 
> The difference being that Christians believe that if they are good and moral folk, and love their neighbor, they'll go to Paradise, whereas, Muslims believe that if they die defending the faith or coming to the aid of the faithful or advancing the faith, while engaged in violence or warfare against their neighbor, then they'll go to Paradise.
> 
> One is a gentle delusion... the other is a bloodthirsty one.
> 
> Even within the domain of delusion, there are vast differences in acceptable vs. dangerous ones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is peaceful, is it?
> 
> _One woe is past; and, behold, there come two woes more hereafter. And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. And thus I saw the horses in the vision, and them that sat on them, having breastplates of fire, and of jacinth, and brimstone: and the heads of the horses were as the heads of lions; and out of their mouths issued fire and smoke and brimstone. By these three was the third part of men killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone, which issued out of their mouths._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Revelations..............of what is to come................death of the world by fire...........aka Nuclear Weapons...........after the 3rd antichrist appears....................via Lion's, Bears, and horsemen representing nations with those symbols from the time...........................
> 
> End of world prophecies...................are these versus saying kill anyone who isn't a Christian..............
> 
> I think not................as the Radical Islamist actually do these things.
> 
> And another diversion from the current topic to twist it to Religion and against Christians.............typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical atheist/agnostic (usually Lib-Prog) faux moral equivalency, in an attempt to draw attention away from the true Bad Guys (Militant Muslims) in all of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're wrong yet again -- I'm neither atheist nor agnostic. Try harder!
Click to expand...

So, you're an atypical contributor, serving-up a typical atheist/agnostic faux moral equivalency. There is no substantive conflict.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> 
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you mind read.............are you ............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are part of the Senate and a very large part.................and as our representatives they have the RIGHT TO SAY..........................
> 
> OBAMA...........KNOCK THE BS OFF............as they are part of this country and Gov't as well...............
> 
> As you again ignore that Obama did the same danged thing......................That topic sucks doesn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not reading minds -- I'm repeating back to you what you're saying.
Click to expand...

No, you are denying that you said they couldn't DENY a Treaty many many posts ago..........


----------



## Vigilante

*Tom Cotton Explains Iran Letter to Bob Schieffer*

weejly standard ^ | 3/15/15 | Daniel Halper
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas explained the reasoning behind the letter he and 46 other senators sent to Iran about the nuclear deal this morning on CBS. Watch Cotton's interview with Bob Schieffer


----------



## Vigilante

*Cotton says 'no regrets' about letter warning Iran about nuclear deal(Excellent)*

Fox News.com ^ | March 15, 2015
Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton on Sunday stood behind the letter he and fellow Senate Republicans sent to Iranian leaders about their nuclear negotiations with the United States, amid criticism that it undermined Obama administration efforts. "It's so important we communicated this message straight to Iran," the freshman senator and member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee told CBS News' "Face the Nation.” "No regrets at all." The letter signed Monday by Cotton and 46 other GOP senators begins as a primer to Iran leaders about the Constitution. Then it suggests that any international deal to limit Iran’s uranium-enrichment efforts toward...


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So now you mind read.............are you ............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are part of the Senate and a very large part.................and as our representatives they have the RIGHT TO SAY..........................
> 
> OBAMA...........KNOCK THE BS OFF............as they are part of this country and Gov't as well...............
> 
> As you again ignore that Obama did the same danged thing......................That topic sucks doesn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not reading minds -- I'm repeating back to you what you're saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are denying that you said they couldn't DENY a Treaty many many posts ago..........
Click to expand...

Try quoting me instead of paraphrasing. I never said the Senate (meaning the whole Senate) couldn't deny a treaty.


----------



## Faun

Faun said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment,  prove Obama didn't break the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I concede the point.
> 
> The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.
> 
> But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> Oh, and, by the way...
> 
> I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...
> 
> I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for that. Let's see if we can reduce this to the smallest possible denominator. Here is the Logan Act ... Other than whether or not they have the authority to do what they did, do you see any other portions that were not violated...
> 
> _
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. _
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute​
Click to expand...

... bump ...


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment,  prove Obama didn't break the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I concede the point.
> 
> The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.
> 
> But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> Oh, and, by the way...
> 
> I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...
> 
> I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for that. Let's see if we can reduce this to the smallest possible denominator. Here is the Logan Act ... Other than whether or not they have the authority to do what they did, do you see any other portions that were not violated...
> 
> _
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. _
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... bump ...
Click to expand...

Didn't see this... sorry... and I'm off to partake of dinner in a few, however...

They did, indeed, attempt to influence the negotiations.

Nolo contendere.

Their defense is that they did so *with* the authority of the United States.

It's the 10,000-pound elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

JoeB131 said:


> Oh, i think signing the letter was stupid, but so is obama rushing to get a treaty so that he can say he got a treaty.



Its not just Obama seeking a treaty - and the rush is the entire P5+1 who know the world is more secure with it rather than without it.

The UNSC will act on Sanctions if a deal is reached.Republican  Senators or  future Republican President will be able to do nothing if Iran complies with the treaty. They were fools to send that letter.


----------



## Dot Com

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said they can't deny a Treaty............and with 47 they CAN............
> 
> 
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.
Click to expand...

The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution.   They just don't.


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Again, not true. Politics can play a role in whether or not indictments are handed out. In another thread, you claimed Obama broke the law over his immigration policy and thought Congress would impeach him over it. Does the lack of impeachment, which is tantamount to an indictment,  prove Obama didn't break the law?
> 
> 
> 
> Upon reflection, you are correct on this matter, after all.
> 
> My apologies.
> 
> I concede the point.
> 
> The presence or absence of indictments do not suffice as prima facie evidence of lawbreaking, in and of their own right.
> 
> But I feel quite comfortable and justified in maintaining that no laws were violated.
> 
> ----------------------------
> 
> Oh, and, by the way...
> 
> I do not recall declaring that Obama had broken the law with respect to his Imperial Decree regarding Illegal Aliens (Immigration) and Shamnesty...
> 
> I merely recall saying that his Imperial Edict was one of the reasons why he was no longer trusted by much of Congress and by much of the American People.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for that. Let's see if we can reduce this to the smallest possible denominator. Here is the Logan Act ... Other than whether or not they have the authority to do what they did, do you see any other portions that were not violated...
> 
> _
> Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
> This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects. _
> 
> 18 U.S. Code 953 - Private correspondence with foreign governments LII Legal Information Institute​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... bump ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't see this... sorry... and I'm off to partake of dinner in a few, however...
> 
> They did, indeed, attempt to influence the negotiations.
> 
> Nolo contendere.
> 
> Their defense is that they did so *with* the authority of the United States.
> 
> It's the 10,000-pound elephant in the room that cannot be ignored.
Click to expand...

Bon appetite! Hopefully, we can pick this up again at a later date .....


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JoeB131 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! What nations were those? And please dial out the irrelevant (Socialist) examples here >()<. Don't be intimidated by all the extra space.
> 
> (Reader, enjoy this excruciatingly short list to come.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France. Germany. Canada. Russia. China. Italy. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Egypt.
Click to expand...


Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Dot Com said:


> The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution.   They just don't.


The 47 Americans in the Senate did follow the Constitution.

See Amendment 1.


----------



## eagle1462010

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."*
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
Click to expand...

_*47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."*_

They are part of the Senate and their votes can pass or deny a Treaty.  This is really what started it, as I stated that since a 2/3rd's is needed they sure as hell can..........

And then Faun states I basically said they are the Senate...............Splitting Hairs in the whole dang thing..............

And I again state, with those numbers if Obama goes around them through Executive Agreement then they WILL BLOCK THE DEAL..............Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............

Many Executive Agreements have been made since WWII.............many being standard house keeping measures..........but not all........and when the Senate doesn't agree they have a RESPONSIBILITY TO CHALLENGE IT.

And they are doing so...................Just as OBAMA did as a Senator with Iran back then, but suddenly IT'S WRONG NOW.

HYPOCRITES have no HONOR.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

eagle1462010 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."*
> 
> They are citizens of the United States.
> 
> Any measure the president signs is binding in international law. For those Senators to declare the United States does not consider them binding sends the message to the world not to enter into agreements with us.
> 
> And the letter was not even accurate in a Constitutional sense. Dumbass Cotton wrote, _"Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them.  In the case of a treaty, the Senate must ratify it by a two-thirds vote."_
> 
> The Senate does not ratify international treaties. They can approve them to be ratified by the countries involved, which may or may not occur, but the Senate does not ratify them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*47 Senators are not "the Senate." They do not speak for "the Senate", they do not represent "the Senate", they cannot pass or deny any treaties as "the Senate."*_
> 
> They are part of the Senate and their votes can pass or deny a Treaty.  This is really what started it, as I stated that since a 2/3rd's is needed they sure as hell can..........
> 
> And then Faun states I basically said they are the Senate...............Splitting Hairs in the whole dang thing..............
> 
> And I again state, with those numbers if Obama goes around them through Executive Agreement then they WILL BLOCK THE DEAL..............Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............
> 
> Many Executive Agreements have been made since WWII.............many being standard house keeping measures..........but not all........and when the Senate doesn't agree they have a RESPONSIBILITY TO CHALLENGE IT.
> 
> And they are doing so...................Just as OBAMA did as a Senator with Iran back then, but suddenly IT'S WRONG NOW.
> 
> HYPOCRITES have no HONOR.
Click to expand...



Don't sweat it Faun's an imbecile and irrelevant in terms of debate.  I read a thread way back when I first came to the board, where JakeStarky drug her around the thread like an intellectual rag doll. 
ROFL!  _JAKE STARKY!  the Intellectual equivalent of a turnip, destroyed her.  _

She's a troll, whose only interest is_ the drama._


----------



## hunarcy

IlarMeilyr said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, Dildo, even within the confines of your world of massively stupid and dishonest, that was a retarded post.  You really ARE a poster child for stupid.
> 
> Try to follow along.  Get a non-retarded adult to help you out, you pathetic kunt.
> 
> I oppose allowing a terrorist nation like Iran, our avowed enemy, from obtaining nuclear weapons.  Therefore, you dingleberry, what I am trying to avoid is the mass murder of lots of human beings.
> 
> You think a nuclear weapon capable Iran is a good thing.  You fucking asshole.  Ergo, YOU are the one who seems to desire mass casualties.
> 
> Now hurry back to fucking yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, once again this oratory genius is stating WITHOUT DOUBT that the agreement is going to allow Iran to have a nuke....STOP THE PRESSES, this idiot KNOWS what is in the agreement....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh you hypocritical dishonest twat.  Share with us your insights on how this negotiation even TENDS to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Damn, you dishonest hack bitch lolberals are gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jerkoff......NOTHING, NOTHING will eventually stop Iran from getting a nuke......unless, that is, Israel decides to disarm herself from the 200 nukes that they have........
> 
> Want to invade Iran.....go for it, chickenhawk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you believe that Obama and Kerry are wasting their time trying to get an agreement to keep Iran from developing the bomb?  Have you let them know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait.  YOU seem to believe that Obumbler and Lurch are even TRYING to to get an agreement that would prevent Iran from EVER getting the capacity to make nuclear weapons?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> Thrill us with your acumen.  Tell us how their public statements square with your "belief?"
Click to expand...


It's what they claim is their goal.  I'm just pointing out that even nat knows it's not going to happen, though I don't think he intended to admit it.


----------



## hunarcy

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2012-title1/pdf/USCODE-2012-title1-chap2-sec112b.pdf
> 
> 2004 Amendment, known as the case act..............
> 
> The date of enactment of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995, referred to in subsec. (b)(2)(A), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 103–236, which was approved Apr. 30, 1994. AMENDMENTS 2004—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108–458 added subsec. (d). 1994—Pub. L. 103–236 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a) and added subsecs. (b) and (c).
> 
> The President is required to report to Congress any Executive Agreements and/or Treaties.................Under the Constitution this portion was supposed to be done with ADVICE AND CONSENT of the SENATE.............Even under Executive Agreements the Dept. of State must inform in writing ANY AGREEMENTS with Foreign Nations.
> 
> While Treaties MUST BE RATIFIED by the Senate...........Executive Agreements do not have to be...........but they are NOT BINDING AGREEMENTS.............they are POLITICAL AGREEMENTS.............and HOLD NO real WEIGHT in the LAWS of this country...............Since they are not Binding..................They cannot LEGALLY BE Enforced if challenged in the courts...................
> 
> Why would Obama Not want a TREATY................because he knows he has a SNOW balls chance in hell of ratification if he cuts a deal with IRAN A LISTED STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR................so he'll make his own deal................as WEAK LEADERS DO..............and it will not be binding.............
> 
> Our country has used the Senate to negotiate Treaties in the past.............They have that right and ability under the Constitution................as these POWERS ARE DUAL................They don't violate the logan act.
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has that power -- individuals members of the Senate do not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 47 Senators are not individuals....................They are almost 50% of the Senate ADVISING OBAMA AND IRAN that THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE NEGOTIATIONS..............
> 
> They can AMEND any TREATY..............a Pact or an Executive Agreement are basically defined under Treaties as types of Treaties.........................
> 
> *Obama's Executive Agreement is NOT BINDING under the Constitution if it is not ratified by the Senate...............*
> 
> The Constitution gives them both roles under international Treaties..................Neither side has the OVERALL AUTHORITY...............They are supposed to mutually work together in the interest of our country........which is why it takes the consent of the Senate to Ratify...........
> 
> Again, they can Amend any treaty...........the POTUS can VETO..........and in the end you have a political settlement that is not binding in Law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Executive Agreements .......are initiated at the Executive level of government and are negotiated by a representative. When the parties agree on the terms, the Secretary of State authorizes the negotiator to sign the agreement and the agreement will enter into force. *Executive agreements do not go to the Senate for consideration and approval. *However, the Senate does need to be notified by the Executive Branch within 60 days of signing the agreement
Click to expand...


Executive agreements are not treaties and do not carry the force of law.  And future Presidents are not bound by them.


----------



## hunarcy

NYcarbineer said:


> Kondor3 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Thank you for proving the OP to be correct. For by "advising a mortal enemy", as you so obtusely put it, they therefore committed treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> We are not in a declared war against Iran.
> 
> We are not in an undeclared war against Iran.
> 
> We are not engaged in warlike military operations against Iran, under the aegis of the War Powers Act nor any other.
> 
> No warfare-caliber hostilities exist between the United States and Iran.
> 
> No Cold War military build-up -caliber operations exist, directed against Iran, beyond a modest real-time presence on its periphery, and considerable surveillance efforts.
> 
> We have not declared Iran to be our mortal enemy.
> 
> Iran has declared the United States to be The Great Satan and its mortal enemy.
> 
> A one-sided definition of a relationship.
> 
> Iran is, indeed, our mortal enemy, in practice.
> 
> Iran is not our enemy in any respect, at-law.
> 
> Consequently, the pallor of '_giving aid and comfort to the enemy_' does not apply.
> 
> Consequently, your allegations do not meet the legal requirements for 'treason' as specified by the Constitution of the United States; not even a Cold War -like scenario.
> 
> Fail.
> 
> But thank you for playing.
> 
> "_Johnny, what do we have by way of a consolation prize for this good sport _?"
> 
> Next contestant, please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If 47 Democratic Senators had done this, with a GOP president,
> 
> would you be defending the Democrats?
Click to expand...


Would you be calling the Democrats traitors?


----------



## hunarcy

Dot Com said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... IF they put it to a vote in the full Senate. That would have been the proper course of action had they done that.
> 
> But 47 Senators acting outside the scope of the full Senate confers them no powers the Constitution grants the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution.   They just don't.
Click to expand...


The "Cotton 47" didn't violate the Constitution.  All your whining and feet stomping changes nothing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

huna 10973771 





hunarcy said:


> Executive agreements are not treaties and do not carry the force of law. And future Presidents are not bound by them.



This treaty is P5+1.   Future presidents are not bound to it but if Iran does not violate it and UNSC sanctions are dropped over the next fifteen years what is a future US president wanting war with Iran or to attack Iran in someway gonna do? No violation by Iran means Iran is not trying to build a bomb. The US would be a pariah nation if it attacks Iran for no reason like it attacked Iraq for no reason.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 





eagle1462010 said:


> ..Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............



The UNSC sanctions are legally binding at the UN and in international law. The US Constitution has nothing to do with them. The US has already voted for them as did France Russia UK and China. The UNSC is developing a resolution, in response to 47 very stupid US Senators, that will lock in whatever lifted sanctions become part of a P5+1 deal with Iran. I'm not sure what you are trying to legally bind to the Constitution. The US is a member of the UN.


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagle1462010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSC sanctions are legally binding at the UN and international law. The US Constitution has nothing to do with them. The US has already voted for them as did France Russia UK and China. The UNSC is developing a resolution, in response to 47 very stupid US Senators, that will lock in whatever lifted sanctions become part of a P5+1 deal with Iran. I'm not sure what you are trying to legally bind to the Constitution. The US is a member of the UN.
Click to expand...



Too funny, if you think we are going o submit our National interest to those whackos.....well then I have some beach front property in Az for you.


----------



## Dot Com

hunarcy said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are part of the Government and have every right to advise the parties involved the rules in this country........as Obama goes around them without giving a damn whether they agree or not..............
> 
> aka they don't want a deal with a country that is a State Sponsor of Terror as listed by the State Department............
> 
> and anyone with common sense knows that they will never honor any deal...........They will say sure and do as they please anyway...........they want the bomb and will not stop until they have it..........whether they sign a danged piece of paper or not...............
> 
> We have a fool in office, and his foreign policy is a disaster..............
> 
> 
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution.   They just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Cotton 47" didn't violate the Constitution.  All your whining and feet stomping changes nothing.
Click to expand...

just because you say so? Who are you again?


----------



## BlackSand

NotfooledbyW said:


> The UNSC sanctions are legally binding at the UN and in international law. The US Constitution has nothing to do with them. The US has already voted for them as did France Russia UK and China. The UNSC is developing a resolution, in response to 47 very stupid US Senators, that will lock in whatever lifted sanctions become part of a P5+1 deal with Iran. I'm not sure what you are trying to legally bind to the Constitution. The US is a member of the UN.



I think the UN Security Council should start meeting in Tehran.
I am sure it would be better than in New York because America is so irresponsible and terrible.

.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on guys!  Don't be shy.  What do you think is going to happen in the ME if this deal goes through?  Don't avoid the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what will happen.  Not much of anything. Our own intelligence indicates Iran is five years from the bomb.  Russia and China will start trading with Iran again, treaty or no treaty.
> 
> The Zionists will whine and bitch and scream, but they don't have the will or the ability to strike Iran.
Click to expand...


Wrong, according to some experts, it will start an arms race in the ME.  Iran is hated and not trusted by not just Israel, you know.


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> Wrong, *according to some experts*, it will start an arms race in the ME.  Iran is hated and not trusted by not just Israel, you know.


name them w/links to their assertions.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, *according to some experts*, it will start an arms race in the ME.  Iran is hated and not trusted by not just Israel, you know.
> 
> 
> 
> name them w/links to their assertions.
Click to expand...


I already have in this thread, SEVERAL times.


----------



## ChrisL

This is very interesting.  Read.  

Obama s Iran scheme is laid bare - The Washington Post


----------



## nat4900

[QUOTE="Antares, 

.[/QUOTE]

It isn't crazy to them and THAT'S what matters.

To them creating global chaos is doing the will of Allah[/QUOTE]

Another Dell Comic Books interpretation of the Q'uran...Such ignorance by this poster and probably allowed to vote somewhere. Sad


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> Where_r_my_Keys said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL! What nations were those? And please dial out the irrelevant (Socialist) examples here >()<. Don't be intimidated by all the extra space.
> 
> (Reader, enjoy this excruciatingly short list to come.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> France. Germany. Canada. Russia. China. Italy. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Egypt.
> 
> In fact, very few or our allies joined us on this stupidity, and the ones who did voted out the fools who did it.  As did we, come to think of it.
Click to expand...



Well responded....but right wingers have very "selective memory lapses"......Remember what happened to Tony Blair and his unequivocal support of GWB?

(actually I have always suspected that the CIA had something on Blair to blackmail into submitting to GWB's wishes....but that's just my own theory.)


----------



## nat4900

Vigilante said:


> *White House Begs GOP to Drop Tough Stance on Iran Nuclear Deal*
> 
> breitbart.com ^ | 3/15/15
> White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough wrote a letter on Saturday night to Senator Bob Corker (and the rest of the U.S. Congress) on behalf of the President regarding the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran. In the letter, he *demands* that the U.S. Senate — which has constitutional authority in treaty making — must step back and let the White House navigate the diplomatic realm with Tehran. The White House argues that the deal is facing imminent collapse because the Congress, by continuing to promote sanctions against the terror regime, will supposedly push Iran’s “hardliners” over the edge and...



This is why idiots like this poster should not cite Breibart.....Note that the title states "begs" while the article states "demands"........

Stupid......???? Well, yes, but standard practice from right wing nut jobs,


----------



## nat4900

[QUOTE="ChrisL,Wrong, according to some experts, it will start an arms race in the ME.  Iran is hated and not trusted by not just Israel, you know.[/QUOTE]

The arms race was started when Israel built up an arsenal of 200 nukes.


----------



## Ernie S.

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> GOP Senators Slam Obama s Private Deal With Iran The Daily Caller
> 
> Forty-seven Republican senators fired off a letter to Iran’s theocracy — and indirectly, to President Barack Obama — warning that only the Senate can confirm long-lasting treaties with foreign powers.
> 
> “We will consider any agreement regarding your nuclear-weapons program that is not approved by the Congress as nothing more than an executive agreement between President Obama and Ayatollah Khamenei,” said the letter, which was sent as Obama tries to complete secret negotiations for new strategic deal with Iran.
> 
> The letter was signed by all three GOP senators vying for the 2016 candidacy — Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Rand Paul and Sen. Marco Rubio — and by the GOP’s Senate leadership.
> 
> The warning may block the deal if Iran concludes that Congress won’t back the deal once Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems a clear violation of the Logan Act to me...
> 
> _Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, *without authority* of the United States, *directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence* or intercourse *with any foreign government* or any officer or agent thereof, *with intent to influence the measures* or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, *or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title... *_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "seems" and "to [you]" are the operative words there.
> 
> If you weren't such a complete pathetic abject dumbass it might occur to you that duly elected United States Senators _*are*_ speaking with the authority of the United States when they address this topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution does not confer any  powers to individual Senators that it grants to the Senate as a body.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit, Sherlock.  But it DOES give them advise and consent type powers over treaties.  And when the Presidunce tries to do an end run around that provision, they have every right to speak as a body or as members of that body to advise other nations that there may very well be problems with the unilateral ATTEMPTED acts of the Presidunce.
> 
> Do ya see the problem yet, dimwit?  Nah.  Probably not.  But here's a clue.  Your Obamessiah is seeking to act (on behalf of the U.S., at least) unilaterally.  Fuck him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
Click to expand...

You do realize that your love of obama is irrational and stupid. Live with it.


----------



## nat4900

[QUOTE="Ernie S., 

You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.[/QUOTE]
You do realize that your love of obama is irrational and stupid. Live with it.[/QUOTE]

Silly response......I disagree with Obama on many, many issues......but I don't hate the guy for thoroughly mopping the floor with repub. candidates. Conversely, your ilk can't stomach a black guy in a white house. Ergo....your hate.


----------



## Ernie S.

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE="ChrisL,Wrong, according to some experts, it will start an arms race in the ME.  Iran is hated and not trusted by not just Israel, you know.



The arms race was started when Israel built up an arsenal of 200 nukes.[/QUOTE]

Still fucking up quotes I see. Stay away from the VB code if you don't understand it.
You cut off Chris's user name, post number and member number. Most liberal idiots can at least quote properly. You are "exceptional".


----------



## Ernie S.

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE="Ernie S.,
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.


You do realize that your love of obama is irrational and stupid. Live with it.[/QUOTE]

Silly response......I disagree with Obama on many, many issues......but I don't hate the guy for thoroughly mopping the floor with repub. candidates. Conversely, your ilk can't stomach a black guy in a white house. Ergo....your hate.[/QUOTE]
Fucked up the quotes yet again and call me silly.

Look, asshole! If you feel you want to insinuate that I hate black people, I suggest you get in touch with my 2nd wife. She'd laugh her gorgeous black ass off.
But, you are half right. I can't stomach the black guy in the White House, mostly because he is a dangerous man.. He is fucking up a nation that my family has fought to create and preserve since The Articles of Confederation.


----------



## rhodescholar

nat4900 said:


> The arms race was started when Israel built up an arsenal of 200 nukes.



When was that moron, 1962?  Liberals who hate Israel are the lowest scum of humanity.

It should be noted that egypt just signed a deal to build a nuclear reactor, as did saudi arabia.  The real proliferation is starting, and nothing good will come of this.  I hope the c-nt liberals in this forum like the taste of nuclear fallout.


----------



## Ernie S.

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF are you talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> You've never heard that saying?
> 
> Why does a dog lick its balls?
> Because it can!
> 
> _*The US has killed over 30,000,000 people around the world since WWII.*_
> Why?  Because we can!  So I wouldn't talk about why others kill, when we have so much blood on our hands.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even know any more in your rabid defense of radical Islam?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever knowledge I possess, is far above your ability to understand it.
> 
> You think its okay to shoot people fishing.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your stupidity is highlighted as if on an Obama billboard with a billion lights.    Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't supported Obama for 6 years now.
> 
> Got anymore dumbass statements?
Click to expand...

Prove that statement, dumbass!


----------



## Ernie S.

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE="Antares,
> 
> .



It isn't crazy to them and THAT'S what matters.

To them creating global chaos is doing the will of Allah[/QUOTE]

Another Dell Comic Books interpretation of the Q'uran...Such ignorance by this poster and probably allowed to vote somewhere. Sad[/QUOTE]
STILL fucking up quotes, I see.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Germany agreed to terms of surrender. It was not about race, idiot.
> 
> The rest of of your post is asinine. Russia did have some effect, but the timing of Japan's capitulation the day after the bombing of Nagasaki indicates to any sane person what ended hostilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except Japan didn't capitulate the same Day.  The Nagasaki bomb was dropped on August 9. Japan didn't surrender until August 15th.  The fact that the Soviets, who entered the war on August 8, were rapidly sweeping through Manchuria had a profound effect on their thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Japan was allowed to keep the Emperor as a figure head but as of VJ day Douglas MacArthur became supreme leader of Japan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But again, that WASN'T our agreement at Potsdam.  Our agreement was unconditional surrender with no pre-conditions.  Then suddenly, when we saw the Russians sweeping into Manchuria and Korea and possibly Japan itself, we just loved us some Hirohito.  Totally forgot about all the war crimes he committed and everything.
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are not sane rational people we are trying to contain. The repeatedly vow to wipe Israel off the map and drop a nuke on Washington. They no more capable of the responsibility of having a nuclear device that a homicidal maniac is capable of the rational use of a firearm.
> Again, asshat. You are so easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guy, frankly, Iran's position is PERFECTLY rational.  Countries with atomic weapons don't get invaded. Atomic weapons assure your national sovereignty.  The fact is they've never threatened to nuke Washington (they don't have the capability anyway).  Nor is it likely they'd nuke Israel and contaminate all those sites Islam considers holy.
Click to expand...

They agreed to US demands by wire on 8/10/45. That date was on the communique I quoted and linked to way back in the thread. I don't feel obligated to hunt the post or the article, frankly because you don't have the intellect to understand. I won't waste my time trying to educate someone stupider than a common garden slug.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Antares said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..Which is why he is trying to go around them.............cutting a deal that is NOT BINDING LEGALLY in the Constitution.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The UNSC sanctions are legally binding at the UN and international law. The US Constitution has nothing to do with them. The US has already voted for them as did France Russia UK and China. The UNSC is developing a resolution, in response to 47 very stupid US Senators, that will lock in whatever lifted sanctions become part of a P5+1 deal with Iran. I'm not sure what you are trying to legally bind to the Constitution. The US is a member of the UN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny, if you think we are going o submit our National interest to those whackos.....well then I have some beach front property in Az for you.
Click to expand...


Well said...  The UN is irrelevant to the United States.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

JoeB131 said:


> Guy, frankly, Iran's position is PERFECTLY rational.



ROFLMNAO!

Keep in mind that the same perverse reasoning that concludes that Iran is rational is the one that concludes that demonstrably deviant sexual behavior is perfectly normal, that there is a RIGHT to murder their pre-born children and that the Earth's EVER-CHANGING CLIMATE, changes because of human behavior, that it can be UNCHANGED by _'scuttling the US Economy by transferring US Wealth to third world hovels' _ AND that paying people NOT to work is promote the likelihood that they'll seek employment.

LOL!...

_"Iran is rational"_... YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS CRAP UP!


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

nat4900 said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *White House Begs GOP to Drop Tough Stance on Iran Nuclear Deal*
> 
> breitbart.com ^ | 3/15/15
> White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough wrote a letter on Saturday night to Senator Bob Corker (and the rest of the U.S. Congress) on behalf of the President regarding the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran. In the letter, he *demands* that the U.S. Senate — which has constitutional authority in treaty making — must step back and let the White House navigate the diplomatic realm with Tehran. The White House argues that the deal is facing imminent collapse because the Congress, by continuing to promote sanctions against the terror regime, will supposedly push Iran’s “hardliners” over the edge and...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why idiots like this poster should not cite Breibart.....Note that the title states "begs" while the article states "demands"........
> 
> Stupid......???? Well, yes, but standard practice from right wing nut jobs,
Click to expand...


ROFLMNAO!

Now THAT is _ADORABLE!
_
The _"White House"... _isn't in a position to demand ANYTHING from anyone, much less the GOP.

Which is the down side to promoting the interests of the enemies of the United States, enacting feckless fiscal policy and deceitfully forcing fraudulent legislation on the United States, after conspiring to frame Innocent US Citizens, through policy YOU enacted to sell guns to known mass-murdeing Mexican gangs, resulting in the death of US Law Enforcement officers, then abusing the power of the executive to prevent your political opposition from effectively opposing you, just before you found a SUPER-Islamic terrorist organization in your "Arab Spring Campaign" resulting in the death of a US Ambassador, three US intelligent operatives and severe injuries to dozens more, then lying to rhe US Public claiming that such was the result of a YOU TUBE VIDEO.

It tends to cause ya to become IRRELEVANT, like obama and his cult.


----------



## Statistikhengst

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE="Ernie S.,
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.


You do realize that your love of obama is irrational and stupid. Live with it.[/QUOTE]

Silly response......I disagree with Obama on many, many issues......but I don't hate the guy for thoroughly mopping the floor with repub. candidates. Conversely, your ilk can't stomach a black guy in a white house. Ergo....your hate.[/QUOTE]


Yepp. That pretty much sums it up.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> They agreed to US demands by wire on 8/10/45. That date was on the communique I quoted and linked to way back in the thread. I don't feel obligated to hunt the post or the article, frankly because you don't have the intellect to understand. I won't waste my time trying to educate someone stupider than a common garden slug.



I know you need your John Wayne history, but the USSR's entry into the war was the deciding factor in Japan's s urrender, not the atom bomb.   We were already doing more damage to Japan with conventional bombings.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They agreed to US demands by wire on 8/10/45. That date was on the communique I quoted and linked to way back in the thread. I don't feel obligated to hunt the post or the article, frankly because you don't have the intellect to understand. I won't waste my time trying to educate someone stupider than a common garden slug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you need your John Wayne history, but the USSR's entry into the war was the deciding factor in Japan's s urrender, not the atom bomb.   We were already doing more damage to Japan with conventional bombings.
Click to expand...



Was that a magic-underwear moment on your part?


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> Was that a magic-underwear moment on your part?



Uh, no. Go read a history book some time. 

Short version.  After the defeat or your miserable country, Russia was able to free up hundreds of battle-tested divisions to send against Japan.  Meanwhile, the Japanese had hoped that the USSR could mediate a peace agreement between them and the other allies.  Once the USSR was in the Pacific War, Japan realized they were in for it.  13 Russian Armies invaded Manchuria on August 8th, and rolled up the Japanese Kwantung Army in less than a few days.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that a magic-underwear moment on your part?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, no. Go read a history book some time.
> 
> Short version.  After the defeat or your miserable country, Russia was able to free up hundreds of battle-tested divisions to send against Japan.  Meanwhile, the Japanese had hoped that the USSR could mediate a peace agreement between them and the other allies.  Once the USSR was in the Pacific War, Japan realized they were in for it.  13 Russian Armies invaded Manchuria on August 8th, and rolled up the Japanese Kwantung Army in less than a few days.
Click to expand...



"your miserable country"?

You talk about the USA that way, really?


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> "your miserable country"?
> 
> You talk about the USA that way, really?



Dude, you're posting from Germany... come on, don't try to fool anyone.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "your miserable country"?
> 
> You talk about the USA that way, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're posting from Germany... come on, don't try to fool anyone.
Click to expand...



But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right?

And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.

I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right?
> 
> And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.
> 
> I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.



No, just tired of dealing with stupid people on both sides of the spectrum on this issue. The fact that you really think the GOP 47 committed "treason", I would hope you don't really think that's how American politics works.


----------



## Statistikhengst

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right?
> 
> And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.
> 
> I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just tired of dealing with stupid people on both sides of the spectrum on this issue. The fact that you really think the GOP 47 committed "treason", I would hope you don't really think that's how American politics works.
Click to expand...



Well, actually, I do think they committed a VERY treasonous act, but realize that they will never be charged. However, poking fun at them is a lot of fun for me.

As for what you state about Niho as the end of WWII, that is indeed factually 50% correct. But other factors were in play as well.

And most may not realize this, but a peace treaty between Russia and Japan was never signed. Officially, on paper, because of the strite over the Kirilians, they are still at war.


----------



## Camp

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right?
> 
> And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.
> 
> I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just tired of dealing with stupid people on both sides of the spectrum on this issue. The fact that you really think the GOP 47 committed "treason", I would hope you don't really think that's how American politics works.
Click to expand...

That is how American politics work. Whether anyone actually committed treason in the technical and legal definition is irrelevant. Perception is what matters in American politics. The Republicans responsible for the letter presented themselves as targets for their opponents to brand them as uninformed and foolish with the bonus being the opportunity to brand them as traitors. Treason is in the eye of the beholder. It is like pornography. You may not be able to define it in exact terms, but you recognize it when you see it. That the culprits have gotten away with a dastardly deed does not mean they are not guilty of the deed. It just means they knew how to get away with the crime with the use of high paid attorneys and loopholes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> And I again state, with those numbers if Obama goes around them through Executive Agreement then they WILL BLOCK THE DEAL..



They cannot block the deal. The Republicans cannot block the deal. There are seven countries making the deal. All seven will agree to a deal and the P5 will act to lock the sanctions and the inspection part into a permanent UNSC Resolution. It's done. Your Republicans pulled a political partisan stunt that backfired except to the minority of right wing nut jobs in this country.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Antares said:


> Too funny, if you think we are going o submit our National interest to those whackos.....well then I have some beach front property in Az for you.



If you were stupid enough to by beachfront property on the ocean in Arizona then I am not so stupid to take it off your hands. 

And you cannot be that bright if you think I said we must submit our national interest to the UN at any time. Its clear that said that no violation by Iran of the P5+1 treaty over the next 15,years means Iran is not trying to build a bomb. There is not national security threat in that case.



NotfooledbyW said:


> Future presidents are not bound to it but if Iran does not violate it and UNSC sanctions are dropped over the next fifteen years what is a future US president wanting war with Iran or to attack Iran in someway gonna do? No violation by Iran means Iran is not trying to build a bomb


----------



## nat4900

Ernie S. said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Antares,
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't crazy to them and THAT'S what matters.
> 
> To them creating global chaos is doing the will of Allah
Click to expand...


Another Dell Comic Books interpretation of the Q'uran...Such ignorance by this poster and probably allowed to vote somewhere. Sad[/QUOTE]
STILL fucking up quotes, I see.[/QUOTE]


I just LOVE to "fuck up" quotes.....as you so eloquently phrased it..


----------



## nat4900

Here's my humble take on all the back-n-forth of this rather long thread....

1. No, those 47 right wing senators will NOT be charged with any seditious acts.

2. Yes, those 46 senators were stupid in following the lead of the rabid 47th who, in turn, is being "bred" by the American Heritage Institute to accelerate and accentuate the anti-all-that-Obama-wants to do campaign.

3. We may be able to postpone Iran's nuclear plans for a few years, but we (nor the rest of the world) will ever be able to permanently prevent that nation's ambitions since Israel has long initiated this deadly arms' race.

4. Right wingers on here (many as profane as sailors in a cheap whore house) have expressed a new found "love" for Israel  based more on their deep-seethed "stick-it-to-Obama-at-every-chance" syndrome.

5. Arm-chair warriors have no problem clamoring for virtually any war, and when such wars prove disastrous to all involved they swear that they were the among the forward looking few who were against such wars.

6. Finally, I also learned that right wing senators need desperately to have pen pals since they feel a bit "un-loved."


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Anta 10974158 





Antares said:


> Too funny, if you think we are going o submit our National interest to those whackos....



You are not up on the facts are you? Why are you commenting.



> .
> State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki told reporters a Security Council resolution would not impact the U.S. ability to act unilaterally on Iran or compel it to remove sanctions, many of which pre-date U.N. nuclear penalties.
> 
> "The Security Council would not impose new binding obligations on the United States that would limit our flexibility in any way to respond to future Iranian non-compliance," Psaki said.
> 
> She added it was always known the council would need to act to repeal U.N. sanctions if there was a deal.
> 
> Some eight U.N. resolutions, four of them imposing sanctions, demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment and other sensitive atomic work. They also bar the country from buying and selling atomic technology and anything linked to ballistic missiles. There is also a U.N. arms embargo.




State Department Pushes Back Against GOP Criticism Of Iran Deal


----------



## pinqy

hunarcy said:


> ... the Government has stopped counting the long term unemployed as if they don't matter any more?  Surprising, but ok.


I really, really wish people would stop making stuff up.  There is not and has never been a max time to be considered unemployed...it wouldn't make any sense.


----------



## CowboyTed

NotfooledbyW said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny, if you think we are going o submit our National interest to those whackos.....well then I have some beach front property in Az for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were stupid enough to by beachfront property on the ocean in Arizona then I am not so stupid to take it off your hands.
> 
> And you cannot be that bright if you think I said we must submit our national interest to the UN at any time. Its clear that said that no violation by Iran of the P5+1 treaty over the next 15,years means Iran is not trying to build a bomb. There is not national security threat in that case.
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future presidents are not bound to it but if Iran does not violate it and UNSC sanctions are dropped over the next fifteen years what is a future US president wanting war with Iran or to attack Iran in someway gonna do? No violation by Iran means Iran is not trying to build a bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Way to go....

So because your insane party of idiots want a war you want to scupper chances at peace.

Listen you had your war, your kind invented a load of manure and got alot of people killed. You are now the idiots of international diplomacy. You are idiots, you haven't met a country that you didn't think that could be not improved by a few bombs.

Well done to Obama and the ROW for ignoring these idiots. Wish Iran would send by a reply asking them to read their own constitution and ask were sanctions imposed by executive order?

I say there is guys in Iran now laughing their asses off.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I again state, with those numbers if Obama goes around them through Executive Agreement then they WILL BLOCK THE DEAL..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot block the deal. The Republicans cannot block the deal. There are seven countries making the deal. All seven will agree to a deal and the P5 will act to lock the sanctions and the inspection part into a permanent UNSC Resolution. It's done. Your Republicans pulled a political partisan stunt that backfired except to the minority of right wing nut jobs in this country.
Click to expand...


  This is interesting, right?  

Obama s Iran scheme is laid bare - The Washington Post

On Thursday evening, after being pressed by irate Republicans, the National Security Council issued a defensive statement insisting that it would do no such thing. The story was handed to BuzzFeed:

The U.S. has “no intention” of using the United Nations to lock into place any potential deal with Iran over its nuclear program, a senior U.S. official said on Thursday.

The United States will not be “converting U.S. political commitments under a deal with Iran into legally binding obligations through a UN Security Council resolution,” Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the U.S. National Security Council, said in a statement emailed to BuzzFeed News.

“Past UNSC resolutions on Iran have called for a negotiated settlement of the Iran nuclear issue, and accordingly we would fully expect the UNSC to ‘endorse’ any deal with Iran and encourage its full implementation so as to resolve international concerns about Iran’s nuclear program,” Meehan continued. “But any such resolution would not change the nature of our commitments under such a deal, which would be wholly contained in the text of that deal.”

What is going on here? For starters, the existing U.N. resolutions obtained by President George W. Bush are much, much stricter than anything President Obama has indicated would be forthcoming. Those resolutions don’t permit Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges. They don’t give Iran a 10-year sunset. They require complete dismantling of Iran’s illicit program, full inspections and an accounting of past illicit behavior. *In other words, any new deal negotiated by the administration would be weaker than — and in fact, in violation of — existing U.N. resolutions. That is why Obama would need to go back to the U.N., to water down, to cave into Iran’s demands.*


----------



## ChrisL

CowboyTed said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny, if you think we are going o submit our National interest to those whackos.....well then I have some beach front property in Az for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you were stupid enough to by beachfront property on the ocean in Arizona then I am not so stupid to take it off your hands.
> 
> And you cannot be that bright if you think I said we must submit our national interest to the UN at any time. Its clear that said that no violation by Iran of the P5+1 treaty over the next 15,years means Iran is not trying to build a bomb. There is not national security threat in that case.
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future presidents are not bound to it but if Iran does not violate it and UNSC sanctions are dropped over the next fifteen years what is a future US president wanting war with Iran or to attack Iran in someway gonna do? No violation by Iran means Iran is not trying to build a bomb
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to go....
> 
> So because your insane party of idiots want a war you want to scupper chances at peace.
> 
> Listen you had your war, your kind invented a load of manure and got alot of people killed. You are now the idiots of international diplomacy. You are idiots, you haven't met a country that you didn't think that could be not improved by a few bombs.
> 
> Well done to Obama and the ROW for ignoring these idiots. Wish Iran would send by a reply asking them to read their own constitution and ask were sanctions imposed by executive order?
> 
> I say there is guys in Iran now laughing their asses off.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but the only idiots are those who would support a nuclear Iran.  THAT is the epitome of idiocy.  Not only that, but the senators are RIGHT, according to my above link.  Obama CANNOT go around making "secret" deals.  

Look bud, this has nothing to do with partisan politics.  It is just plain old common sense and knowledge of Iran, their history and their beliefs.  Sorry that some of you are just too STUPID to realize what a mistake this would be.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Here's my humble take on all the back-n-forth of this rather long thread....
> 
> 1. No, those 47 right wing senators will NOT be charged with any seditious acts.
> 
> 2. Yes, those 46 senators were stupid in following the lead of the rabid 47th who, in turn, is being "bred" by the American Heritage Institute to accelerate and accentuate the anti-all-that-Obama-wants to do campaign.
> 
> 3. We may be able to postpone Iran's nuclear plans for a few years, but we (nor the rest of the world) will ever be able to permanently prevent that nation's ambitions since Israel has long initiated this deadly arms' race.
> 
> 4. Right wingers on here (many as profane as sailors in a cheap whore house) have expressed a new found "love" for Israel  based more on their deep-seethed "stick-it-to-Obama-at-every-chance" syndrome.
> 
> 5. Arm-chair warriors have no problem clamoring for virtually any war, and when such wars prove disastrous to all involved they swear that they were the among the forward looking few who were against such wars.
> 
> 6. Finally, I also learned that right wing senators need desperately to have pen pals since they feel a bit "un-loved."



You're a fool.


----------



## Mad Scientist

NotfooledbyW said:


> The UNSC sanctions are legally binding at the UN and in international law. The US Constitution has nothing to do with them. The US has already voted for them as did France Russia UK and China. The UNSC is developing a resolution, in response to 47 very stupid US Senators, that will lock in whatever lifted sanctions become part of a P5+1 deal with Iran. I'm not sure what you are trying to legally bind to the Constitution. The US is a member of the UN.


This is why America will fall.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my humble take on all the back-n-forth of this rather long thread....
> 
> 1. No, those 47 right wing senators will NOT be charged with any seditious acts.
> 
> 2. Yes, those 46 senators were stupid in following the lead of the rabid 47th who, in turn, is being "bred" by the American Heritage Institute to accelerate and accentuate the anti-all-that-Obama-wants to do campaign.
> 
> 3. We may be able to postpone Iran's nuclear plans for a few years, but we (nor the rest of the world) will ever be able to permanently prevent that nation's ambitions since Israel has long initiated this deadly arms' race.
> 
> 4. Right wingers on here (many as profane as sailors in a cheap whore house) have expressed a new found "love" for Israel  based more on their deep-seethed "stick-it-to-Obama-at-every-chance" syndrome.
> 
> 5. Arm-chair warriors have no problem clamoring for virtually any war, and when such wars prove disastrous to all involved they swear that they were the among the forward looking few who were against such wars.
> 
> 6. Finally, I also learned that right wing senators need desperately to have pen pals since they feel a bit "un-loved."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool.
Click to expand...

 

Thank you......nothing confirms to me more that I may be on the correct side of an argument, than to have dingbats like your ilk call me a "fool."
Again, thank you.....much appreciated.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## hunarcy

Dot Com said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The president is part of the government -- does that mean he has the power to levy taxes, a power delegated to the Congress?
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are twisting the subject.............That's internal and he can't go to Reid and cut a Executive order to Raise taxes...............We are dealing with Foreign Countries and it is a different animal and subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're the one saying that simply being a part of the government grants one powers the Constitution doesn't specifically confer to them. Seems you think that only applies to the 47 Republican Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Cotton 47 don't have to follow the Constitution.   They just don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Cotton 47" didn't violate the Constitution.  All your whining and feet stomping changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> just because you say so? Who are you again?
Click to expand...


I'm the guy that listened in Civics class while you talked and didn't learn anything, apparently.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> They agreed to US demands by wire on 8/10/45. That date was on the communique I quoted and linked to way back in the thread. I don't feel obligated to hunt the post or the article, frankly because you don't have the intellect to understand. I won't waste my time trying to educate someone stupider than a common garden slug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you need your John Wayne history, but the USSR's entry into the war was the deciding factor in Japan's s urrender, not the atom bomb.   We were already doing more damage to Japan with conventional bombings.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. It happens hourly.


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right?
> 
> And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.
> 
> I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just tired of dealing with stupid people on both sides of the spectrum on this issue. The fact that you really think the GOP 47 committed "treason", I would hope you don't really think that's how American politics works.
Click to expand...

 
I may not agree with *JoeB's* stance on some issues, but I do admire someone's statements that are less biased and objective.


----------



## Ernie S.

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "your miserable country"?
> 
> You talk about the USA that way, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're posting from Germany... come on, don't try to fool anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right.
> And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.
> 
> I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.
Click to expand...

It's true! No one likes the idiot.


----------



## Ernie S.

nat4900 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right?
> 
> And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.
> 
> I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just tired of dealing with stupid people on both sides of the spectrum on this issue. The fact that you really think the GOP 47 committed "treason", I would hope you don't really think that's how American politics works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may not agree with *JoeB's* stance on some issues, but I do admire someone's statements that are less biased and objective.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! You quoted someone and didn't fuck it up.


----------



## Ernie S.

Statistikhengst said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [QUOTE="Ernie S.,
> 
> You do realize that your hate of Obama is just that....your own bile-filled hate that acts like a cancer....Tough for you....Live with it.
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that your love of obama is irrational and stupid. Live with it.
Click to expand...


Silly response......I disagree with Obama on many, many issues......but I don't hate the guy for thoroughly mopping the floor with repub. candidates. Conversely, your ilk can't stomach a black guy in a white house. Ergo....your hate.[/QUOTE]


Yepp. That pretty much sums it up.[/QUOTE]
Silly response to an idiotic post... much like your contributions here.
Keep on trying to paint my "ilk" as racist while 99% of us wold support Allan West, Ben Carson, Condoleeza Rice, Bobby Jindal or Mia Love over hillary clinton. 
Your irrational hatred of Conservatives is showing again Joe. I'm damned sorry your Mormon boss fired you for being a meth head, but there are treatment centers available. If you don't have health insurance, you might try Narcotics Anonymous. It's free.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> Silly response......I disagree with Obama on many, many issues......but I don't hate the guy for thoroughly mopping the floor with repub. candidates. Conversely, your ilk can't stomach a black guy in a white house. Ergo....your hate.




Reader, consider the above contribution and the mental disorder which presents as an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder, OKA: _Delusion_.


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Statistikhengst said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "your miserable country"?
> 
> You talk about the USA that way, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're posting from Germany... come on, don't try to fool anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. ...
Click to expand...


False... Nature precludes the means for anyone to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis... therefore, at BEST, you're merely a US Citizen, in which there is no potential point of pride.  The vast majority of which came to be such, through no effort on their part what so ever... having merely slid down a birth canal, while the Mother was located on US Soil.

To BE an American, one must recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the Principles that define America. 

Nowhere in the 28k+ posts you've published since Nov 2013, is there any evidence that you've any kinship with such, let alone your recognizing, respecting, defending or evidence that you've in any way ever adhered to American Principle.


----------



## Dot Com

Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

Dot Com said:


> Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?



No... .


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my humble take on all the back-n-forth of this rather long thread....
> 
> 1. No, those 47 right wing senators will NOT be charged with any seditious acts.
> 
> 2. Yes, those 46 senators were stupid in following the lead of the rabid 47th who, in turn, is being "bred" by the American Heritage Institute to accelerate and accentuate the anti-all-that-Obama-wants to do campaign.
> 
> 3. We may be able to postpone Iran's nuclear plans for a few years, but we (nor the rest of the world) will ever be able to permanently prevent that nation's ambitions since Israel has long initiated this deadly arms' race.
> 
> 4. Right wingers on here (many as profane as sailors in a cheap whore house) have expressed a new found "love" for Israel  based more on their deep-seethed "stick-it-to-Obama-at-every-chance" syndrome.
> 
> 5. Arm-chair warriors have no problem clamoring for virtually any war, and when such wars prove disastrous to all involved they swear that they were the among the forward looking few who were against such wars.
> 
> 6. Finally, I also learned that right wing senators need desperately to have pen pals since they feel a bit "un-loved."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you......nothing confirms to me more that I may be on the correct side of an argument, than to have dingbats like your ilk call me a "fool."
> Again, thank you.....much appreciated.
Click to expand...


I think we all know who the dingbat is, and it ain't me!    Anyone who is supportive of Obama's STUPID idea is a moron.  Period and end of story.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right?
> 
> And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.
> 
> I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, just tired of dealing with stupid people on both sides of the spectrum on this issue. The fact that you really think the GOP 47 committed "treason", I would hope you don't really think that's how American politics works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may not agree with *JoeB's* stance on some issues, but I do admire someone's statements that are less biased and objective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Holy crap! You quoted someone and didn't fuck it up.
Click to expand...


Will wonders never cease???


----------



## Coyote

Senate Historian Can t Find Anything In History That Matches GOP Iran Sabotage Letter



> Republicans who are already reeling from the letter that 47 of their senators sent to Iran were dealt another blow as the U.S. Senate Historian’s Office can’t find another example of this type of behavior anywhere in Senate history.
> 
> McClatchy reported:
> 
> _The U.S. Senate Historian’s Office has so far been unable to find another example in the chamber’s history where one political party openly tried to deal with a foreign power against a presidential policy, as Republicans have attempted in their open letter to Iran this week.
> 
> 
> ….
> 
> 
> We haven’t found a precedent,” said Senate Historian Donald Ritchie. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t a precedent. After 200 years. It’s hard to find anything that unprecedented.”
> 
> 
> In the past, Ritchie said, “what usually happened is a senator would sign a ’round robin’ letter or a sense of the Senate resolution, or write a letter to the president or secretary of State voicing objections to some particular policy.”_​
> The historian left the door open to a letter surfacing that could lend precedent to the Republicans’ actions, *but it isn’t a good sign for Republicans that one hasn’t been found. Congressional Republicans are fond of accusing President Obama of overreaching and overstepping his bounds, but the letter sent to the Iranian government was a clear case of overreach.
> 
> ...The fact that the Senate can’t find a comparable example to the Iran letter demonstrates that the level of hatred that Republicans have for President Obama is also unprecedented. The level of partisan contempt for the man who occupies the White House is so extreme that Republicans are willing to sabotage global security and world peace in an attempt to politically wound the president.*


----------



## ChrisL

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "your miserable country"?
> 
> You talk about the USA that way, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're posting from Germany... come on, don't try to fool anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False... Nature precludes the means for anyone to simultaneously adhere to both the Thesis and the Antithesis... therefore, at BEST, you're merely a US Citizen, in which there is no potential point of pride.  The vast majority of which came to be such, through no effort on their part what so ever... having merely slid down a birth canal, while the Mother was located on US Soil.
> 
> To BE an American, one must recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the Principles that define America.
> 
> Nowhere in the 28k+ posts you've published since Nov 2013, is there any evidence that you've any kinship with such, let alone your recognizing, respecting, defending or evidence that you've in any way ever adhered to American Principle.
Click to expand...


I know.  Why do they hate our country?  Why do they want to destroy the world?


----------



## bendog

Dot Com said:


> Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?


yes

Some Who Signed Nuclear Letter Are Starting To Regret Sending It To Iran ThinkProgress
it's not about the message, but to whom it was sent.  The inexplicable thing is why so many experienced senators dcked this duck up.  Even Jeffrey Goldberg at Atlantic is mystified, and perplexed that the gop would take this stance.  If talks fail on what is seen as the US's refusal to negotiation, then the international support for sanctions themselves will fall apart.  If whatever deal is emerging is not going to keep Iran a year away from a bomb for the duration of the agreement, then disagreement needs to be taken directly to Obama, and also to organizations seen as credible, like the CFR.  Sending a letter to Iran itself was just stupid.


----------



## bendog

Coyote said:


> Senate Historian Can t Find Anything In History That Matches GOP Iran Sabotage Letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans who are already reeling from the letter that 47 of their senators sent to Iran were dealt another blow as the U.S. Senate Historian’s Office can’t find another example of this type of behavior anywhere in Senate history.
> 
> McClatchy reported:
> 
> _The U.S. Senate Historian’s Office has so far been unable to find another example in the chamber’s history where one political party openly tried to deal with a foreign power against a presidential policy, as Republicans have attempted in their open letter to Iran this week.
> 
> 
> ….
> 
> 
> We haven’t found a precedent,” said Senate Historian Donald Ritchie. “That doesn’t mean there isn’t a precedent. After 200 years. It’s hard to find anything that unprecedented.”
> 
> 
> In the past, Ritchie said, “what usually happened is a senator would sign a ’round robin’ letter or a sense of the Senate resolution, or write a letter to the president or secretary of State voicing objections to some particular policy.”_​
> The historian left the door open to a letter surfacing that could lend precedent to the Republicans’ actions, *but it isn’t a good sign for Republicans that one hasn’t been found. Congressional Republicans are fond of accusing President Obama of overreaching and overstepping his bounds, but the letter sent to the Iranian government was a clear case of overreach.
> 
> ...The fact that the Senate can’t find a comparable example to the Iran letter demonstrates that the level of hatred that Republicans have for President Obama is also unprecedented. The level of partisan contempt for the man who occupies the White House is so extreme that Republicans are willing to sabotage global security and world peace in an attempt to politically wound the president.*
Click to expand...


Well, Pelosi met with Assad, and back with Reagan I think some dems were speaking directly to the sandanistas. 

But the question remains, why would gop senators who've been around trip over tom cotton's dick?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

when you have lost uncle Joe




* Even Joe Scarborough Believes Republicans Went Too Far With “Stupid” Iran Letter *

During Monday's broadcast of Morning Joe, co-host Joe Scarborough finally relented and said that the "one-two punch" of House Republicans inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak…


----------



## nat4900

Dot Com said:


> Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?


 
Well, McCain stated that because of the looming snow storm he signed the letter in a hurry just to get out of town.

Rand stated that, as far as he was concerned, the letter was really meant for Obama.

Graham stated that...after all, it was meant as some kind of joke.


----------



## nat4900

bendog said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?
> 
> 
> 
> yes
> 
> Some Who Signed Nuclear Letter Are Starting To Regret Sending It To Iran ThinkProgress
> it's not about the message, but to whom it was sent.  The inexplicable thing is why so many experienced senators dcked this duck up.  Even Jeffrey Goldberg at Atlantic is mystified, and perplexed that the gop would take this stance.  If talks fail on what is seen as the US's refusal to negotiation, then the international support for sanctions themselves will fall apart.  If whatever deal is emerging is not going to keep Iran a year away from a bomb for the duration of the agreement, then disagreement needs to be taken directly to Obama, and also to organizations seen as credible, like the CFR.  Sending a letter to Iran itself was just stupid.
Click to expand...

 

Well, "reading between the lines," right wingers behind the scene (like Bill Krystal) nudged Cotton to devise this letter as a "test run" to see if the general public would back such an attempt.....

Were it to have succeeded, then Cotton would be a very likely VP candidate for the GOP.

If, instead, it flopped (as it did) then the right wingers could shrug it off as the "overzealousness" of a rookie senator.


----------



## bendog

I don't watch morning joe religiously (-:, but I thought even last week he was doubting the wisdom of senators directly addressing an adversary.  I'm not sure I'd find it so blatantly improper had the senators reached out to politicians in the other 5plus1 countries.  But, really, at the heart of it, I don't see the real objection to some negotiated deal that keeps Iran a year away from having a bomb for ten years, and then eight years or so in, see what the geopolitical situation is.  IF there's a pale state, Iran isn't gonna nuke Palestine.  If Iran seems determined to start an arms race amongst the muslims, then it would seem pretty clear to me the world needs to make it even harder for them.  So, imo, some of the opposition to any deal has to be about real antipathy, emotions and unreasonable distrust not just of Iran but Obama.  I mean I don't like as a politician, but his daughters like him and he did pull the cord on Osama.  He's not a muslim sleeper agent.


----------



## bendog

nat4900 said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?
> 
> 
> 
> yes
> 
> Some Who Signed Nuclear Letter Are Starting To Regret Sending It To Iran ThinkProgress
> it's not about the message, but to whom it was sent.  The inexplicable thing is why so many experienced senators dcked this duck up.  Even Jeffrey Goldberg at Atlantic is mystified, and perplexed that the gop would take this stance.  If talks fail on what is seen as the US's refusal to negotiation, then the international support for sanctions themselves will fall apart.  If whatever deal is emerging is not going to keep Iran a year away from a bomb for the duration of the agreement, then disagreement needs to be taken directly to Obama, and also to organizations seen as credible, like the CFR.  Sending a letter to Iran itself was just stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, "reading between the lines," right wingers behind the scene (like Bill Krystal) nudged Cotton to devise this letter as a "test run" to see if the general public would back such an attempt.....
> 
> Were it to have succeeded, then Cotton would be a very likely VP candidate for the GOP.
> 
> If, instead it flopped (as it did) then the right wingers could shrug it off as the "overzealousness: of a rokkie senator.
Click to expand...

Cotton was being groomed no doubt.  He's now poison.  He's going to be asked "if you were president, and a senator communicated directly to a for govt that you were negotiating a security deal with, what would you do?"  LOL


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ernie S. said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> "your miserable country"?
> 
> You talk about the USA that way, really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, you're posting from Germany... come on, don't try to fool anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But it's not "my" country. I am still an American. You do understand that, right.
> And BTW, modern-day Germany is anything but miserable.
> 
> I assume that your magic underpants are just a little too tight for you today... you've been pretty grumpy lately.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's true! No one likes the idiot.
Click to expand...



Whoooo?


----------



## rhodescholar

As said above many times:

BBC News - Iran deal could start nuclear fuel race - Saudi Arabia

"A senior member of the Saudi royal family has warned that a deal on Iran's nuclear programme could prompt other regional states to develop atomic fuel."


----------



## nat4900

Ultimately the reaction to this ill-advised letter will be evident IF during upcoming senatorial elections, signatories will be challenged to defend their stance......and we all know that when a politican has to "defend" a position, that individual is at a disadvantage.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?




Do you mean the Teheran Troubadours???


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> [QUOTE="Antares,
> 
> .



It isn't crazy to them and THAT'S what matters.

To them creating global chaos is doing the will of Allah[/QUOTE]

Another Dell Comic Books interpretation of the Q'uran...Such ignorance by this poster and probably allowed to vote somewhere. Sad[/QUOTE]

Apparently you revel in your ignorance kid.

You clearly haven't any knowledge of Iran at all.

Tell me kid.....what Shia Sect do the Iranian Mullahs ascribe to?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I again state, with those numbers if Obama goes around them through Executive Agreement then they WILL BLOCK THE DEAL..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot block the deal. The Republicans cannot block the deal. There are seven countries making the deal. All seven will agree to a deal and the P5 will act to lock the sanctions and the inspection part into a permanent UNSC Resolution. It's done. Your Republicans pulled a political partisan stunt that backfired except to the minority of right wing nut jobs in this country.
Click to expand...


The next Prez can simply decide to not participate, it is not a legally binding agreement.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Anta 10978838 





Antares said:


> The next Prez can simply decide to not participate, it is not a legally binding agreement




Fine. That means Iran is cooperating and not violating the agreement or trying to build a bomb. The fear mongering and warmongering are over in that case.


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> Anta 10978838
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> The next Prez can simply decide to not participate, it is not a legally binding agreement
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. That means Iran is cooperating and not violating the agreement or trying to build a bomb. The fear mongering and warmongering are over in that case.
Click to expand...


Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession.


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> what Shia Sect do the Iranian Mullahs ascribe to?



Since Shia may already mean "sect"....I presume that you are referring to the Jafareya?


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession




Typical right wing hegemony......sick, sick, FOX watcher.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Anta10978935 





Antares said:


> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession



Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If
Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.


----------



## Billo_Really

Kondor3 said:


> Wow... the little wanker wants to play _Internet Tough Guy_...
> 
> Are we all now appropriately frightened and cowed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether a dogmatic, martyrdom-encouraging theocracy gets a nuclear weapon or not is *EVERY* _sane man's_ business.
> 
> Which explains why that hasn't occurred to you.
> 
> Given that you are neither 'sane' nor holding a place at the grownup's table amongst actual men who have _earned_ that title.
> 
> Now, back to the Kiddie Table with you... you're bothering the grownups.


Traitor's like you, have lost your voice in American politics.  Now move to the country whose ass you kiss the most.


----------



## Billo_Really

eagle1462010 said:


> Have you been yelling at me from next door calling me the Great Satan and telling me that Allah wills me to die...............
> 
> In this country we have laws against threatening our neighbors and their lives..............as you would have to be building shit to kill your neighbor......
> 
> Are you building shit to kill your neighbors..............to pay for someone else to kill them...aka terrorist................
> 
> Bad example.


I would never yell at you from next door.  I take it, you didn't get the cookies and milk I placed on your doorstep?


----------



## Billo_Really

Faun said:


> Why is it a diversion to mention Revelations in response to the 12th Imam?


Is that like the 5th Beatle?


----------



## Billo_Really

Ernie S. said:


> Prove that statement, dumbass!


You want me to prove a negative?

Boy, you're sure not the sharpest tool in the sched.


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the Teheran Troubadours???
Click to expand...

oh yeah. Them


----------



## Dot Com

TyroneSlothrop said:


>


CrusaderFrank lol


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Dot Com

Billo_Really said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that statement, dumbass!
> 
> 
> 
> You want me to prove a negative?
> 
> Boy, you're sure not the sharpest tool in the sched.
Click to expand...

THATS an understatement


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Haven't some of the "Cotton 47" admitted that they screwed-up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean the Teheran Troubadours???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh yeah. Them
Click to expand...


AKA the prissy pricks of Persia.


----------



## Dot Com

Did the Cotton 47 write the letter in Persian/Farsi?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Statistikhengst said:


> AKA the prissy pricks of Persia.


and their award winning album _The mellifluous melodies of Mesopotamia....._..


----------



## Statistikhengst

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> AKA the prissy pricks of Persia.
> 
> 
> 
> and their award winning album _The mellifluous melodies of Mesopotamia....._..
Click to expand...


With the hit song:

The Natural Necromancers of Natanz...


----------



## Statistikhengst

"Dear Vladi,

we missed you. Obama sucks. Come be our presidunce.

signed,

Tom Cotton and 46 other useful idiots."

aka the kapering kaka-birds of the Kremlin.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> Did the cotton 47 write the letter in Persian/Farsi?




They may have mistaken it for sanskrit...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Dot Com said:


> Did the cotton 47 write the letter in Persian/Farsi?




Just heard Cotton told Bob Schiefer that Iran already took over Tehran and Damascus and Baghdad - think what they'll do with a bomb.


----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## Statistikhengst




----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> "Dear Vladi,
> 
> we missed you. Obama sucks. Come be our presidunce.
> 
> signed,
> 
> Tom Cotton and 46 other useful idiots."
> 
> aka the kapering kaka-birds of the Kremlin.


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


>


It would be funny if it weren't so tragic


----------



## Statistikhengst

NotfooledbyW said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did the cotton 47 write the letter in Persian/Farsi?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just heard Cotton told Bob Schiefer that Iran already took over Tehran and Damascus and Baghdad - think what they'll do with a bomb.
Click to expand...



My Lord, at this rate, they might take over all of ..... PERSIA!!!


----------



## Statistikhengst

I am thinking that this thread might live for a long, long time....


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> what Shia Sect do the Iranian Mullahs ascribe to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since Shia may already mean "sect"....I presume that you are referring to the Jafareya?
Click to expand...


Or it may not, are you wanting to try and show that there is not more than 1 sect in Shia?

It's not my first rodeo kid.

What sect of Shia do the Iranian Mullahs ascribe to?


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical right wing hegemony......sick, sick, FOX watcher.
Click to expand...


Again you show yourself to be completely ignorant on the subject.


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> Anta10978935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If
> Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
Click to expand...



Too funny fool, you assume they will abide by any agreement reached, and you do so without any reason .

You aren't very good at this.


----------



## Antares

Statistikhengst said:


>



How cute , a little pussy who never served is making fun of a Veteran.


----------



## bendog

Antares said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anta10978935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If
> Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny fool, you assume they will abide by any agreement reached, and you do so without any reason .
> 
> You aren't very good at this.
Click to expand...

Ah, but then the agreement's provision of what will happen if Iran does not comply, and who will make that determination, probably need to be known before making judgments.  And you appear to be the only one making assumptions.


----------



## Dot Com

Statistikhengst said:


> I am thinking that this thread might live for a long, long time....


at least until page 100


----------



## Dot Com

Fox news employee likes it so...
Tom Cotton s political nightmare How we know for sure his letter was a failure - Salon.com


> Bill Kristol, neocon operative who's wrong about everything, thinks the Iran letter was a brilliant maneuver. Uh-oh


----------



## Antares

bendog said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anta10978935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If
> Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny fool, you assume they will abide by any agreement reached, and you do so without any reason .
> 
> You aren't very good at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, but then the agreement's provision of what will happen if Iran does not comply, and who will make that determination, probably need to be known before making judgments.  And you appear to be the only one making assumptions.
Click to expand...


Sorry, no.

Religion drives the Mullahs, nothing happens without the Mullahs approval.

I know what they believe and I know what that means.

I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Antares said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How cute , a little pussy who never served is making fun of a Veteran.
Click to expand...


You mean the cartoonist?


----------



## bendog

Cotton doesn't get to play the vet victim card after he enters politics.


----------



## Antares

Statistikhengst said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How cute , a little pussy who never served is making fun of a Veteran.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the cartoonist?
Click to expand...


So you were in the Brownies and you think that counts as "service"?


----------



## bendog

Antares said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anta10978935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If
> Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny fool, you assume they will abide by any agreement reached, and you do so without any reason .
> 
> You aren't very good at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, but then the agreement's provision of what will happen if Iran does not comply, and who will make that determination, probably need to be known before making judgments.  And you appear to be the only one making assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.
> 
> Religion drives the Mullahs, nothing happens without the Mullahs approval.
> 
> I know what they believe and I know what that means.
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.
Click to expand...

Well, as I said, you're in no position to accuse others of making assumptions.


----------



## ChrisL

Antares said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How cute , a little pussy who never served is making fun of a Veteran.
Click to expand...


Because they are disrespectful people with hate in their hearts.


----------



## Antares

bendog said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anta10978935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If
> Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny fool, you assume they will abide by any agreement reached, and you do so without any reason .
> 
> You aren't very good at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, but then the agreement's provision of what will happen if Iran does not comply, and who will make that determination, probably need to be known before making judgments.  And you appear to be the only one making assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.
> 
> Religion drives the Mullahs, nothing happens without the Mullahs approval.
> 
> I know what they believe and I know what that means.
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, as I said, you're in no position to accuse others of making assumptions.
Click to expand...


As I said you are ignorant of the subject, and you seem quite willing to remain that way.


----------



## ChrisL

Antares said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anta10978935
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fools think they can "negotiate" with the Iranians.....hence Obama and Kerry and their obsession
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If
> Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny fool, you assume they will abide by any agreement reached, and you do so without any reason .
> 
> You aren't very good at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, but then the agreement's provision of what will happen if Iran does not comply, and who will make that determination, probably need to be known before making judgments.  And you appear to be the only one making assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.
> 
> Religion drives the Mullahs, nothing happens without the Mullahs approval.
> 
> I know what they believe and I know what that means.
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.
Click to expand...


They won't listen to common sense.  They ignore anything that doesn't agree with their partisan politics.  If you think about it, SOME of the libs (some of them are cool though) are almost like the mullahs.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Antares said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anta10978935 Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If
> Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny fool, you assume they will abide by any agreement reached, and you do so without any reason .
> 
> You aren't very good at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, but then the agreement's provision of what will happen if Iran does not comply, and who will make that determination, probably need to be known before making judgments.  And you appear to be the only one making assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.
> 
> Religion drives the Mullahs, nothing happens without the Mullahs approval.
> 
> I know what they believe and I know what that means.
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, as I said, you're in no position to accuse others of making assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said you are ignorant of the subject, and you seem quite willing to remain that way.
Click to expand...


Extremely ignorant.  They are not even willing to learn.  It's quite pathetic actually.


----------



## Antares

ChrisL said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny fool, you assume they will abide by any agreement reached, and you do so without any reason .
> 
> You aren't very good at this.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, but then the agreement's provision of what will happen if Iran does not comply, and who will make that determination, probably need to be known before making judgments.  And you appear to be the only one making assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, no.
> 
> Religion drives the Mullahs, nothing happens without the Mullahs approval.
> 
> I know what they believe and I know what that means.
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, as I said, you're in no position to accuse others of making assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said you are ignorant of the subject, and you seem quite willing to remain that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Extremely ignorant.  They are not even willing to learn.  It's quite pathetic actually.
Click to expand...


It is sad.


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> Again you show yourself to be completely ignorant on the subject.



Thank you, Antie......much appreciated...Please keep enlightening us with your desperation for attention......


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is *in Shia*.



Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need *antie* to teach us such things


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is *in Shia*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need *antie* to teach us such things
Click to expand...


Somebody needs to teach you something.  That much is obvious.  Lol.


----------



## JoeB131

Statistikhengst said:


> Well, actually, I do think they committed a VERY treasonous act, but realize that they will never be charged. However, poking fun at them is a lot of fun for me.



Well, no, they didn't.  And even though I voted for Obama in 2012, I'd be the first one calling for his impeachment if criticizing his dumber decisions became "Treasonous".



Ernie S. said:


> You are wrong, but that shouldn't surprise anyone. It happens hourly.



Again, you need to actually read a history book or two about Japan.


----------



## Dot Com

bendog said:


> Cotton doesn't get to play the vet victim card after he enters politics.


yep. Once you enter politics you are (in Rove's terms) "fair game"


----------



## JoeB131

rhodescholar said:


> As said above many times:
> 
> BBC News - Iran deal could start nuclear fuel race - Saudi Arabia
> 
> "A senior member of the Saudi royal family has warned that a deal on Iran's nuclear programme could prompt other regional states to develop atomic fuel."



Empty Threat.  Other than Saudi Arabia, most of the countries of the region don't have the resources.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> Somebody needs to teach you something. That much is obvious. Lol.




Perhaps, *Chrissy*......but not from your buddy *Antie *wh*o *probably meant to type * "for" Shia and not "in*" Shia


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> Empty Threat. Other than Saudi Arabia, most of the countries of the region don't have the resources




Of course, you're correct, but I can see the vastly corrupt Saudi royals being a bit on edge and trying to germinate fear.


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is *in Shia*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need *antie* to teach us such things
Click to expand...


You look more stupid with every post kid 

By all means keep digging .


----------



## rhodescholar

NotfooledbyW said:


> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.



Asshole, iran have NEVER been in compliance, and continues to not be in compliance.

Only a total moron would even think to enter an agreement with a regime of that nature, or that they'd ever keep their side of the arrangement.


----------



## Antares

rhodescholar said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, iran have NEVER been in compliance, and continues to not be in compliance.
> 
> Only a total moron would even think to enter an agreement with a regime of that nature, or that they'd ever keep their side of the arrangement.
Click to expand...


Both W and nat are moron's, just keep watching.


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> Both W and nat are moron's, just keep watching.




Some day, if I try real hard to piss of Antie, I'll get my screen name before W's,


----------



## Lakhota

Some rightwingers are now trying to claim that the Cotton Senate letter was never actually sent to Iran.

The letter was released on the official Senate website - signed by 47 U.S. Senators.  If President Obama had announced on the official White House government website that he was going to invade Israel - would rightwingers and Israel consider it official and take it as a serious threat?  BTW, how did Iran find out about the letter?  How did they get a copy?

http://www.cotton.senate.gov/sites/default/files/150309 Cotton Open Letter to Iranian Leaders.pdf


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both W and nat are moron's, just keep watching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some day, if I try real hard to piss of Antie, I'll get my screen name before W's,
Click to expand...


You can't piss me off, you aren't intelligent enough.


----------



## Dot Com

So even Cotton is backpedaling/minimizing it?


----------



## rhodescholar

Dot Com said:


> So even Cotton is backpedaling/minimizing it?



Who gives a fuck what cotton wrote, sent, didn't send, wanted to send, had sent, etc.?

The leftist/liberal iran apologists whole fucking argument in this thread is: "ok, we know iran is horrendous, a terror state, cannot be trusted, are mass murderers, have cheated on the NPT for years, have hidden whole nuclear facilities, probably have 20 more hidden, have sworn to destroy the West - BUT - our Dear Leader obama always knows best, and if he says we need to sign and agreement with iran - then that is what we will do."


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I again state, with those numbers if Obama goes around them through Executive Agreement then they WILL BLOCK THE DEAL..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They cannot block the deal. The Republicans cannot block the deal. There are seven countries making the deal. All seven will agree to a deal and the P5 will act to lock the sanctions and the inspection part into a permanent UNSC Resolution. It's done. Your Republicans pulled a political partisan stunt that backfired except to the minority of right wing nut jobs in this country.
Click to expand...

And again, it's not binding under the Constitution here..............Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here.................It is a Political agreement when it doesn't go through the Senate...........and it is an AGREEMENT between countries if ever signed.................

We left Europe for a reason.............We are not part of the EU...............and our laws and decisions here are not decided by them or ONE MAN OBAMA under the Constitution.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## nat4900

eagle1462010 said:


> We left Europe for a reason.............We are not part of the EU...............and our laws and decisions here are not decided by them or ONE MAN OBAMA under the Constitution.



*Really, Beagle? We left Europe? We are not part of the EU?*

Belgium
NATO-Brussels, Belgium 
SHAPE-Chievres, Belgium 

Germany
Ansbach, Germany 
Bad Aibling, Germany 
Bad Kreuznach, Germany 
Bamberg, Germany 
Baumholder, Germany 
Darmstadt, Germany 
Friedberg, Germany 
Garmisch, Germany 
Geilenkirchen AB, Germany 
Giebelstadt, Germany 
Grafenwoehr, Germany 
Hanau, Germany 
Heidelberg, Germany 
Hohenfels, Germany 
Illesheim, Germany 
Kaiserslautern, Germany 
Kitzingen, Germany 
Mannheim, Germany 
Ramstein AB, Germany 
Rhein-Main AB, Germany 
Schweinfurt, Germany 
Spangdahlem AB, Germany 
Stuttgart, Germany 
US Army Europe, Germany 
Vilseck, Germany 
Wiesbaden/Mainz, Germany 
Wuerzburg, Germany 

Greece
NSA Souda Bay, Greece 

Iceland
NAS Keflavik, Iceland 

Italy
Aviano AB, Italy 
Livorno, Italy 
NAS Sigonnella, Italy 
NSA Gaeta, Italy 
NSA La Maddalena, Italy 
NSA Naples, Italy 
Vicenza, Italy 

Netherland
Schinnen, Netherlands 

Portugal
Lajes Field, Portugal 

Spain
NS Rota, Spain 

UK
JMF St. Mawgan, UK 
Luke AFB, AZ 
RAF Lakenheath, UK 
RAF Menwith Hill, UK 
RAF Mildenhall, UK 
RAF Molesworth, UK 
US Naval Activities, London UK


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> You can't piss me off, you aren't intelligent enough.




Tell you what, I'm tired of the "personal" attacks when there's much more serious issues......and have the spine to tell your compatriots on here to use a bit less profanity as substitute for substance.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> ...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here



I just said the same thing - what is your problem.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
Click to expand...

You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.

To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................

Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.

Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................

If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
Click to expand...

BTW..........You didn't say the same thing...........You spouted INTERNATIONAL LAW..............I've got news for you.......under the UN arms agreements it requires member nations to REGISTER...........WEAPONS AND AMMO...........Even though it's primarily aimed at large arms and combat weapons............it still requires registration for the people....................Which is currently not our law.................and is currently NOT BINDING VIA our LAWS and the Constitution.


----------



## ChrisL

rhodescholar said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only a fool would send a meaningless post such as yours. I see you cannot refute or deny my response.  If Iran complies with the negotiated deal the negotiations cannot be considered foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asshole, iran have NEVER been in compliance, and continues to not be in compliance.
> 
> Only a total moron would even think to enter an agreement with a regime of that nature, or that they'd ever keep their side of the arrangement.
Click to expand...


My thoughts exactly.


----------



## nat4900

Sometime, in the "privacy" of your own thoughts, all of you right wingers on here must (or should) realize that there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing that you can do to stop a sovereign country from developing the scourge of a nuclear weapon.

Israel should have realized that when they amassed 200 of those nukes under the eternal banner that they are persecuted and victims, that eventually their enemies would want such weaponry.

Anyway, you right wingers can bitch and moan, blame Obama, blame all liberals, blame your own grandmothers, etc.....and it will be all for naught.......but you will always have this forum to vent and curse and stomp your feet uselessly.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> Sometime, in the "privacy" of your own thoughts, all of you right wingers on here must (or should) realize that there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing that you can do to stop a sovereign country from developing the scourge of a nuclear weapon.
> 
> Israel should have realized that when they amassed 200 of those nukes under the eternal banner that they are persecuted and victims, that eventually their enemies would want such weaponry.
> 
> Anyway, you right wingers can bitch and moan, blame Obama, blame all liberals, blame your own grandmothers, etc.....and it will be all for naught.......but you will always have this forum to vent and curse and stomp your feet uselessly.



Obama is weak.  He is a weak leader who gives into pressure.  That is the bottom line.  And . . .his idea is stupid.

This has nothing to do with partisanship for me, as I am NOT a republican or a conservative.  I am anti death penalty amongst other views.  Both of your parties are stupid, if you ask me.  They are monopolizing our government and ruining our country!


----------



## Dot Com

Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.


----------



## Statistikhengst

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is *in Shia*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need *antie* to teach us such things
Click to expand...


*Lol. Good catch!

Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.

It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.

So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dot Com said:


> Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.


Particularly these 47 nitwits in the Senate.


----------



## Statistikhengst

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We left Europe for a reason.............We are not part of the EU...............and our laws and decisions here are not decided by them or ONE MAN OBAMA under the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Really, Beagle? We left Europe? We are not part of the EU?*
> 
> Belgium
> NATO-Brussels, Belgium
> SHAPE-Chievres, Belgium
> 
> Germany
> Ansbach, Germany
> Bad Aibling, Germany
> Bad Kreuznach, Germany
> Bamberg, Germany
> Baumholder, Germany
> Darmstadt, Germany
> Friedberg, Germany
> Garmisch, Germany
> Geilenkirchen AB, Germany
> Giebelstadt, Germany
> Grafenwoehr, Germany
> Hanau, Germany
> Heidelberg, Germany
> Hohenfels, Germany
> Illesheim, Germany
> Kaiserslautern, Germany
> Kitzingen, Germany
> Mannheim, Germany
> Ramstein AB, Germany
> Rhein-Main AB, Germany
> Schweinfurt, Germany
> Spangdahlem AB, Germany
> Stuttgart, Germany
> US Army Europe, Germany
> Vilseck, Germany
> Wiesbaden/Mainz, Germany
> Wuerzburg, Germany
> 
> Greece
> NSA Souda Bay, Greece
> 
> Iceland
> NAS Keflavik, Iceland
> 
> Italy
> Aviano AB, Italy
> Livorno, Italy
> NAS Sigonnella, Italy
> NSA Gaeta, Italy
> NSA La Maddalena, Italy
> NSA Naples, Italy
> Vicenza, Italy
> 
> Netherland
> Schinnen, Netherlands
> 
> Portugal
> Lajes Field, Portugal
> 
> Spain
> NS Rota, Spain
> 
> UK
> JMF St. Mawgan, UK
> Luke AFB, AZ
> RAF Lakenheath, UK
> RAF Menwith Hill, UK
> RAF Mildenhall, UK
> RAF Molesworth, UK
> US Naval Activities, London UK
Click to expand...


*You should see how huge the base is outside of Mannheim, in Käfertal. Pretty neat.
And especially in communities where the bases have been there a long time, Germans just love us Amis. We bring money into the economy, lots of marriages have come out of it, etc.

There are lots of less known massive success stories concerning our military presence in Europe, at least in Germany, as far as I can tell.

I have a number of German friends who were absolutely against the Iraq war, but still have respect and admiration for us. This is a point where many Righties fall on their asses, because they think that a disagreement about something means that someone doesn't like you anymore, you know, like how 3rd graders often think...*


----------



## Statistikhengst

Dot Com said:


> Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.




*It really is a damned shame. Even the sacred principle of the water's edge just doesn't mean a damn to Republicans anymore.

And though there are differences, stark differences, to Pelosi's visit to Syria in 2006 (Bush 43 didn't want her to go, she ended up going with an entourage of both Democrats AND Republicans, there was no election going on at that time and also no treaty negotiations), I don't think that Pelosi did the right thing in that case, either.

What we are seeing here is a sort of "one-upmanship" from opposition party to the next opposition party and I ask myself, where will it finally stop?

Especially considering that in terms of a real treaty, surely the Repubs know that there are not enough Democratic votes in the Senate to push ratification of the execution of a treaty through without at least 21 GOP votes.  So, they could have just waited (if it is a bona-fide treaty and not a presidential order) and killed it in the Senate and then accused the President of not having included their input into the negotiations, yadayadayada, and that would have been a point of argument that I would have to (reluctantly) agree with. Because that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Had they waited, then the President would have delivered them enough political munition to do just that. But they now ruined that possibility for themselves.

Plus, let's not forget, a number of nations are in on these negotiations, not just the USA and Iran. The GOP made fools out of themselves not just in front of an adversary, but also in front of our allies. A buddy of mine read about this who fiasco in the Berliner Morgenpost and started to laugh, called the 47 "kopflose Hühner" (headless chickens).  I got a chuckle out of that one. Oh, and my buddy, he works for the German Bundeswehr....

I also don't generally believe in hanging the results of one election in one country onto the politics of another country, but if Netanyahu's LIKUD loses today, even if just narrowly, I think there are going to be some major repercussions and a lot of finger-pointing, also at the GOP. For Bibi was doing better in polling BEFORE the speech on March 3rd than after the speech, that much is sure.*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

rhodescholar said:


> Asshole, iran have NEVER been in compliance, and continues to not be in compliance.
> 
> Only a total moron would even think to enter an agreement with a regime of that nature, or that they'd ever keep their side of the arrangement.



What nuclear issue are they not in compliance with?. There is a one year breakout period from peaceful nuclear activities to success at making a bomb.  We get more accurate intelligence on where and what to bomb during that one years time frame with a treaty which we don't without a treaty. So you are for a more dangerous world and less accurate intelligence for bombing. That is the stupidest position of all.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> Obama is weak. He is a weak leader who gives into pressure. That is the bottom line. And . . .his idea is stupid.
> 
> This has nothing to do with partisanship for me, as I am NOT a republican or a conservative. I am anti death penalty amongst other views. Both of your parties are stupid, if you ask me. They are monopolizing our government and ruining our country!



Well, Chrissy. I actually tend to agree with you (kind of worries me...lol) and I have not been enamored by the democrats during a good portion of my long life......However, when comparing the 2 main parties' platform and behavior, I am left with no choice.

Your antipathy for anything-Obama is something that only you can discern and deal with.....has Obama made mistakes? Lots, no doubt.....but all in all he is a cautious, good leader who does NOT deserve the rabid hatred that has been witnessed.

He got elected on a platform of change, and gotten crucified precisely for addressing and enacting  those changes.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability.  Period.

Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama is weak. He is a weak leader who gives into pressure. That is the bottom line. And . . .his idea is stupid.
> 
> This has nothing to do with partisanship for me, as I am NOT a republican or a conservative. I am anti death penalty amongst other views. Both of your parties are stupid, if you ask me. They are monopolizing our government and ruining our country!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, Chrissy. I actually tend to agree with you (kind of worries me...lol) and I have not been enamored by the democrats during a good portion of my long life......However, when comparing the 2 main parties' platform and behavior, I am left with no choice.
> 
> Your antipathy for anything-Obama is something that only you can discern and deal with.....has Obama made mistakes? Lots, no doubt.....but all in all he is a cautious, good leader who does NOT deserve the rabid hatred that has been witnessed.
> 
> He got elected on a platform of change, and gotten crucified precisely for addressing and enacting  those changes.
Click to expand...


No choice?  Let's limit PAC funding for the two major parties that monopolize and manipulate our system.  That would give 3rd party candidates a better chance at getting their names recognized and being valid candidates.  The way things are set up now, no one can compete with the PAC funding for Dems and Repubs.


----------



## ChrisL

The two main parties do NOT care about this country.  It is party FIRST for them, as well as their followers, and that is very apparent to me.


----------



## ChrisL

Statistikhengst said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It really is a damned shame. Even the sacred principle of the water's edge just doesn't mean a damn to Republicans anymore.
> 
> And though there are differences, stark differences, to Pelosi's visit to Syria in 2006 (Bush 43 didn't want her to go, she ended up going with an entourage of both Democrats AND Republicans, there was no election going on at that time and also no treaty negotiations), I don't think that Pelosi did the right thing in that case, either.
> 
> What we are seeing here is a sort of "one-upmanship" from opposition party to the next opposition party and I ask myself, where will it finally stop?
> 
> Especially considering that in terms of a real treaty, surely the Repubs know that there are not enough Democratic votes in the Senate to push ratification of the execution of a treaty through without at least 21 GOP votes.  So, they could have just waited (if it is a bona-fide treaty and not a presidential order) and killed it in the Senate and then accused the President of not having included their input into the negotiations, yadayadayada, and that would have been a point of argument that I would have to (reluctantly) agree with. Because that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Had they waited, then the President would have delivered them enough political munition to do just that. But they now ruined that possibility for themselves.
> 
> Plus, let's not forget, a number of nations are in on these negotiations, not just the USA and Iran. The GOP made fools out of themselves not just in front of an adversary, but also in front of our allies. A buddy of mine read about this who fiasco in the Berliner Morgenpost and started to laugh, called the 47 "kopflose Hühner" (headless chickens).  I got a chuckle out of that one. Oh, and my buddy, he works for the German Bundeswehr....
> 
> I also don't generally believe in hanging the results of one election in one country onto the politics of another country, but if Netanyahu's LIKUD loses today, even if just narrowly, I think there are going to be some major repercussions and a lot of finger-pointing, also at the GOP. For Bibi was doing better in polling BEFORE the speech on March 3rd than after the speech, that much is sure.*
Click to expand...


The only fools here are the ones who would even contemplate supporting a nuclear Iran.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.


----------



## ChrisL

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.
> 
> 
> 
> Particularly these 47 nitwits in the Senate.
Click to expand...


At least they are showing that they CARE more about the country than party politics.  What do WE get out of a nuclear Iran???  What is the benefit/risk ratio?


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability.  Period.
> 
> Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.


 
Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.

First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.

Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.


----------



## bendog

Statistikhengst said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It really is a damned shame. Even the sacred principle of the water's edge just doesn't mean a damn to Republicans anymore.
> 
> And though there are differences, stark differences, to Pelosi's visit to Syria in 2006 (Bush 43 didn't want her to go, she ended up going with an entourage of both Democrats AND Republicans, there was no election going on at that time and also no treaty negotiations), I don't think that Pelosi did the right thing in that case, either.
> 
> What we are seeing here is a sort of "one-upmanship" from opposition party to the next opposition party and I ask myself, where will it finally stop?
> 
> Especially considering that in terms of a real treaty, surely the Repubs know that there are not enough Democratic votes in the Senate to push ratification of the execution of a treaty through without at least 21 GOP votes.  So, they could have just waited (if it is a bona-fide treaty and not a presidential order) and killed it in the Senate and then accused the President of not having included their input into the negotiations, yadayadayada, and that would have been a point of argument that I would have to (reluctantly) agree with. Because that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Had they waited, then the President would have delivered them enough political munition to do just that. But they now ruined that possibility for themselves.
> 
> Plus, let's not forget, a number of nations are in on these negotiations, not just the USA and Iran. The GOP made fools out of themselves not just in front of an adversary, but also in front of our allies. A buddy of mine read about this who fiasco in the Berliner Morgenpost and started to laugh, called the 47 "kopflose Hühner" (headless chickens).  I got a chuckle out of that one. Oh, and my buddy, he works for the German Bundeswehr....
> 
> I also don't generally believe in hanging the results of one election in one country onto the politics of another country, but if Netanyahu's LIKUD loses today, even if just narrowly, I think there are going to be some major repercussions and a lot of finger-pointing, also at the GOP. For Bibi was doing better in polling BEFORE the speech on March 3rd than after the speech, that much is sure.*
Click to expand...

Joe Klein of Time was on Morning Joe, and I think he made a good pt (even Scarborough agreed, and David Ignatius didn't disagree) that Bibi's speech may actually have helped negotiations in that he plays "the bad cop," and that can be effective in gaining a better bargaining chip.  The letter, conversely, empowers the Iran hardliners in the Republican Guard to say "see, they won't really make a deal." 

I'm not sure what effect Bibi's speech has on the election.  Obviously, he intended to energize his base, who don't like Obama and don't want any peace of any kind, that he was the guy who could stand up against the potus.  It may have had that effect, but it also seems to have energized voters who realize Israel cannot afford to antagonize a potus. 

Herzog is hardly liberal on Iran or settlements.  I really doubt he can put together a coalition that would accept a deal, that he says he favors, based on the one Bill Clinton nearly negotiated.  I'm not sure the world would not be better off with Bibi remaining PM, because his "no pale state" pledge is not going to go over well in Europe, and trade sanctions through the UN would be divisive in Israel, and frankly I think the time has passed when the US can broker any deal, and it's time for the EU, UN and sunni nations to forge a consensus on what a deal will be for a Pale state.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability.  Period.
> 
> Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.
> 
> First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.
> 
> Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.
Click to expand...


LOL.  You plodding clods are predictable.

We KNOW what the Presidunce and his inept present Secretary of State have SAID.

Then, as to your second invalid pointless, your assurance that there's "nothing we can do" is fully expected from you surrender monkeys.  It's a false statement, but that's fine.  We have come to never expect you to speak truthfully.


----------



## bendog

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability.  Period.
> 
> Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.
> 
> First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.
> 
> Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Actually we probably can keep Iran from getting a working nuke with an agreement and inspections.  They've stopped enriching uranium, and the IAEA has access for inspections.  Any deal would have to include unacceptable consequences falling on Iran if they re-commenced enrichment.


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
Click to expand...

Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability.  Period.
> 
> Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.
> 
> First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.
> 
> Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.
Click to expand...


Yes . . . we do, and I posted a link to it earlier in this thread.  Maybe you should try reading some of the links provided for you instead of ignoring them and going around blathering.

Edit:  Oops, wrong link - corrected. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/w...late-obstacles-to-a-deal.html?ref=topics&_r=0

The areas of convergence in the deal circulating in Washington and European capitals include a complex arrangement in which Iran would ship large portions of its stockpiles of uranium out of the country, almost certainly to Russia. In return, the United States and its negotiating partners could allow Iran to keep roughly 6,500 of its centrifuges spinning, rather than the few hundred that were under discussion a year ago.

The number of centrifuges, which may be altered in the final stages of talks, will take on outsize proportions in the public debate here. Opponents of the deal argue that it will leave the Iranians with a latent production capacity, even though the country would have limited amounts of uranium to work with. American officials insist that for at least the first 10 years of a final accord, the mix of fuel and enrichment capacity will leave the United States, Israel and others with at least a year’s worth of warning time if Iran raced to make a bomb’s worth of material — compared to just a few months of warning time today.

But inside the negotiating rooms, there are still major debates about how to phase in the lifting of United Nations, American and European sanctions as Iran complies with the terms. The sanctions standoff underscores a little-discussed but politically volatile issue for the Obama administration: how quickly Iran would see economic and technological benefits from any accord.

A suspension, and ultimate elimination, of the sanctions on oil exports and financial transactions is the key issue for President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and his lead negotiator, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, if they hope to sell a 10-year or longer limitation on their nuclear activity to Iranian mullahs and military leaders who have opposed the negotiations. As details of the talks leak, they are being used by opponents in Tehran, especially the Revolutionary Guard Corps, which oversees the military side of the nuclear program. They argue that by limiting Iran’s capabilities for so many years, the United States would use an accord to thwart Iran’s emergence as the major power in the Middle East.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
Click to expand...


Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't piss me off, you aren't intelligent enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what, I'm tired of the "personal" attacks when there's much more serious issues......and have the spine to tell your compatriots on here to use a bit less profanity as substitute for substance.
Click to expand...


Tell you what ADD something any given conversation, it is you doing the drive by's.


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We left Europe for a reason.............We are not part of the EU...............and our laws and decisions here are not decided by them or ONE MAN OBAMA under the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Really, Beagle? We left Europe? We are not part of the EU?*
> 
> Belgium
> NATO-Brussels, Belgium
> SHAPE-Chievres, Belgium
> 
> Germany
> Ansbach, Germany
> Bad Aibling, Germany
> Bad Kreuznach, Germany
> Bamberg, Germany
> Baumholder, Germany
> Darmstadt, Germany
> Friedberg, Germany
> Garmisch, Germany
> Geilenkirchen AB, Germany
> Giebelstadt, Germany
> Grafenwoehr, Germany
> Hanau, Germany
> Heidelberg, Germany
> Hohenfels, Germany
> Illesheim, Germany
> Kaiserslautern, Germany
> Kitzingen, Germany
> Mannheim, Germany
> Ramstein AB, Germany
> Rhein-Main AB, Germany
> Schweinfurt, Germany
> Spangdahlem AB, Germany
> Stuttgart, Germany
> US Army Europe, Germany
> Vilseck, Germany
> Wiesbaden/Mainz, Germany
> Wuerzburg, Germany
> 
> Greece
> NSA Souda Bay, Greece
> 
> Iceland
> NAS Keflavik, Iceland
> 
> Italy
> Aviano AB, Italy
> Livorno, Italy
> NAS Sigonnella, Italy
> NSA Gaeta, Italy
> NSA La Maddalena, Italy
> NSA Naples, Italy
> Vicenza, Italy
> 
> Netherland
> Schinnen, Netherlands
> 
> Portugal
> Lajes Field, Portugal
> 
> Spain
> NS Rota, Spain
> 
> UK
> JMF St. Mawgan, UK
> Luke AFB, AZ
> RAF Lakenheath, UK
> RAF Menwith Hill, UK
> RAF Mildenhall, UK
> RAF Molesworth, UK
> US Naval Activities, London UK
Click to expand...


Nope we are NOT a part of the EU.

Yes we have troops stationed all over but we are not a member state.


----------



## ChrisL

It's a terrible deal which involves lifting sanctions on Iran and allowing them to enrich Uranium.  Horrible!


----------



## Antares

Statistikhengst said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is *in Shia*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need *antie* to teach us such things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lol. Good catch!
> 
> Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.
> 
> It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.
> 
> So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.*
Click to expand...


Never said it was a language, the question stands.....WHAT is the driving religious Beliefs of the Iranian Mullahs?
See if you can keep up, it seems to elude Nat.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
Click to expand...

Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...

U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty

Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.

Damn, you suck at this.


----------



## Antares

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
Click to expand...



Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.


----------



## Faun

Antares said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
Click to expand...

Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?


----------



## Antares

Faun said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?
Click to expand...


*"
*


*

The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders 
*
 


*

It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
*
 


*

Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
*
 


*

Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
*
 


*

President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
*
 


*

The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
*

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]

*Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
Click to expand...


Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.

And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word.  What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, is that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.

Good.  The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.

That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> The only fools here are the ones who would even contemplate supporting a nuclear Iran.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.


so you are of the neocon hive mind (attack first & ask questions later). BTW- you ever serve? When, where?


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> At least they are showing that they CARE more about the country than party politics.  What do WE get out of a nuclear Iran???  What is the benefit/risk ratio?


They CARE about the leading israel lobby backlash & defense contractor , campaign $$$ oh naive one.  ChrisL


----------



## Faun

Antares said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
Click to expand...

This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.


----------



## Antares

Faun said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
Click to expand...


The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just said the same thing - what is your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.
> 
> And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word.  What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, si that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.
> 
> Good.  The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.
> 
> That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.
Click to expand...

It's not my fault you're a moron who doesn't comprehend the subtle distinction between "abrogate" and "withdraw."

_ The United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry or protest marked the U.S. move *abrogating* the treaty and its prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world._​


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.
> 
> To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................
> 
> Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.
> 
> Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................
> 
> If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.
> 
> And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word.  What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, si that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.
> 
> Good.  The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.
> 
> That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my fault you're a moron who doesn't comprehend the subtle distinction between "abrogate" and "withdraw."
> 
> _ The United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry or protest marked the U.S. move *abrogating* the treaty and its prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world._​
Click to expand...


You are far too stupid to breath, fauny.

One cannot abrogate a treaty to which one is no longer a party.  And one is no longer a party to a treaty after one has withdrawn from it.

Damn, I can't spend all my time trying to educate the educable- mentally retarded asshole shit sucking willful tools like you.


----------



## Faun

Antares said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
Click to expand...

You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate.* I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
Click to expand...


Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.

Tsk tsk.

The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.

Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.


----------



## Siete

the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.

Executive agreements bear no such details.

Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?

End of conflict.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Siete said:


> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.



I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?


----------



## Siete

IlarMeilyr said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?
Click to expand...




IlarMeilyr said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?
Click to expand...



then you should exit the thread on grounds of ignorance.


----------



## Dot Com

Cotton doesn't take long to sidle up to def contractor buddies (crony capitalism)

Tom Cotton calls for defense spending boost - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO


----------



## bendog

Siete said:


> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.


Typically, a treaty contains some legal adverse consequence for a county pulling out, or refusing to do some action promised in the treaty.  It's sort of like a contract.  The Senate must consent, because the executive is not supposed to be able to bind the country to paying money or funding stuff the congress doesn't pass a bill to accomplish. 

This is not a treaty because all the 5plus1 nations agree to do is to suspend economic sanctions.  I don't believe Obama has signed any laws saying a sanction is imposed without his consent.  I cannot imagine any potus signing that kind of law.  There are still questions about the timing of suspending sanctions, what Iran has to do, who decides whether Iran is in compliance, and what happens it Iran is not.  Personally, unless there's a provision of reapplying the hammer to Iran without going through all the negotations to get sanctions in the first place, then we should not be agreeing.


----------



## Siete

Treaties with foreign countries are negotiated and signed by the executive branch, but ratification only occurs after the Senate gives its approval in a two-thirds vote. But there’s another kind of agreement beyond treaties -- indeed, they represent a growing share of agreements in recent decades. They are known as "executive agreements."

The procedure for treaties is spelled out in the Constitution, but there’s little in the Constitution about executive agreements. Their authority comes instead from longstanding practice, as well as the support of such Supreme Court cases as _United States vs. Belmont_ (1936), _United States vs. Pink _(1941), and _Dames and Moore vs. Regan_ (1981).


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.
> 
> And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word.  What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, si that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.
> 
> Good.  The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.
> 
> That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my fault you're a moron who doesn't comprehend the subtle distinction between "abrogate" and "withdraw."
> 
> _ The United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry or protest marked the U.S. move *abrogating* the treaty and its prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are far too stupid to breath, fauny.
> 
> One cannot abrogate a treaty to which one is no longer a party.  And one is no longer a party to a treaty after one has withdrawn from it.
> 
> Damn, I can't spend all my time trying to educate the educable- mentally retarded asshole shit sucking willful tools like you.
Click to expand...

Bush abrogated the treaty when he withdrew. Damn, you are one ignorant rube.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Siete said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then you should exit the thread on grounds of ignorance.
Click to expand...


No no, sevenpointsevenseven. I called you out on your lack of honesty and/or knowledge.  Don't try to pretend now that just because you MADE your half-baked error ridden claim that you don't also have the burden of proof on it.

It ought to be easy.

Quote the Article and Section and clause of the Constitution that gives the Senate an "exit from a treaty" authority.

But you won't because -- psst -- it aint in the Constitution.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.
> 
> And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word.  What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, si that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.
> 
> Good.  The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.
> 
> That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my fault you're a moron who doesn't comprehend the subtle distinction between "abrogate" and "withdraw."
> 
> _ The United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry or protest marked the U.S. move *abrogating* the treaty and its prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are far too stupid to breath, fauny.
> 
> One cannot abrogate a treaty to which one is no longer a party.  And one is no longer a party to a treaty after one has withdrawn from it.
> 
> Damn, I can't spend all my time trying to educate the educable- mentally retarded asshole shit sucking willful tools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush abrogated the treaty when he withdrew. Damn, you are one ignorant rube.
Click to expand...


Wrong, you dishonest hack bitch.

he withdrew from the treaty and thus couldn't possibly abrogate it.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
Click to expand...


So, you remain unwilling to admit that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.

check.


----------



## Siete

IlarMeilyr said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then you should exit the thread on grounds of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No no, shitforbrains. I called you out on your lack of honesty and/or knowledge.  Don't try to pretend now that just because you MADE your half-baked error ridden claim that you don't also have the burden of proof on it.
> 
> It ought to be easy.
> 
> Quote the Article and Section and clause of the Constitution that gives the Senate an "exit from a treaty" authority.
> 
> But you won't because -- psst -- it aint in the Constitution.
Click to expand...


classy  ... for a convict.

````````````````
Treaty embroilment is so dangerous and so important, that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, _provided two thirds of the Senators present concur_; [Emphasis added.]"

*This provision accomplishes two things*: 1) it prohibits the President _alone_ to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home.


----------



## Dot Com

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? It's us Liberals, is it? Or is it that you're demented? I say it's the latter since the last president to break a treaty was Bush...
> 
> U.S. Withdraws From ABM Treaty
> 
> Need more evidence you're nuts? 47 Republican Senators just informed the world that the U.S. doesn't keep it's word.
> 
> Damn, you suck at this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Withdrawing from a treaty is not breaking the treaty you incredibly stupid propagandist wannabe.
> 
> And the 47 Senators said NOTHING about the US not keeping its word.  What they CORRECTLY noted, you lying sack of stupid, si that a future President could undo what Obumbler might do unilaterally, and they also correctly noted that Congress could also undo it.
> 
> Good.  The shitbirds in Iran might as well know that in advance.
> 
> That you lie so loudly and persistently says lots about how desperate you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not my fault you're a moron who doesn't comprehend the subtle distinction between "abrogate" and "withdraw."
> 
> _ The United States withdrew from the landmark 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty on June 13. Little pageantry or protest marked the U.S. move *abrogating* the treaty and its prohibition against nationwide missile defenses, despite often fierce debate on the accord within Washington and around the world._​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are far too stupid to breath, fauny.
> 
> One cannot abrogate a treaty to which one is no longer a party.  And one is no longer a party to a treaty after one has withdrawn from it.
> 
> Damn, I can't spend all my time trying to educate the educable- mentally retarded asshole shit sucking willful tools like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush abrogated the treaty when he withdrew. Damn, you are one ignorant rube.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, you dishonest hack bitch.
> 
> he withdrew from the treaty and thus couldn't possibly abrogate it.
Click to expand...

ummm.....this is the politics sub-forum kiddo.

as to the OP, The Cotton 47 haven't heard the last from this.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Siete said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Constitution provides an exit from a treaty with Senate majority approval.
> 
> Executive agreements bear no such details.
> 
> Responsibility of proof ... Treaty of Executive Agreement?
> 
> End of conflict.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that the Constitution addresses the topic of "exiting" from treaties.  So, are you making things up or are you just confused again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> then you should exit the thread on grounds of ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No no, shitforbrains. I called you out on your lack of honesty and/or knowledge.  Don't try to pretend now that just because you MADE your half-baked error ridden claim that you don't also have the burden of proof on it.
> 
> It ought to be easy.
> 
> Quote the Article and Section and clause of the Constitution that gives the Senate an "exit from a treaty" authority.
> 
> But you won't because -- psst -- it aint in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> classy  ... for a convict.
> 
> ````````````````
> Treaty embroilment is so dangerous and so important, that to further limit and restrict their making, Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 orders that the President: "...shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, _provided two thirds of the Senators present concur_; [Emphasis added.]"
> 
> *This provision accomplishes two things*: 1) it prohibits the President _alone_ to commit the United States to an agreement with other nations (the Senate must advise, consent, concur, and ratify). And 2), why is the Senate singled out, and not the House of Representatives, or both Houses? Because the Senate is the branch of the Congress whose Senators' constituencies are not "my people back home," but "my State government back home.
Click to expand...


^ Pointless, even by your standards.

Note:  for slow people, I will occasionally deign to make the already clear a bit clearer.

I did not say that the Constitution doesn't address the Senate authority with regards to the making of treaties.  We all already know about the advice and consent provision.

What I said is that the Constitution says nothing about the un-making of treaties.

As usual, I was completely correct.

thank me.


----------



## Siete

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
Click to expand...



you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you remain a willfully dishonest hack bitch whining that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.
> 
> check.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, your synapses don't fire with enough frequency for you to comprehend he couldn't rebuff me since he didn't even address my point that Bush was the last president to break a Senate-approved treaty.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you remain unwilling to admit that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.
> 
> check.
Click to expand...


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Siete said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.
Click to expand...


I am well aware of your ignorance.  My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.

I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.

Thank me.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> 
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you remain a willfully dishonest hack bitch whining that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.
> 
> check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, your synapses don't fire with enough frequency for you to comprehend he couldn't rebuff me since he didn't even address my point that Bush was the last president to break a Senate-approved treaty.
Click to expand...


Actually, the problem is all yours.  YOU refuse to concede that Obumbler claims that his NON treaty executive agreement cannot be undone.  He nailed you.

I know you will still decline to admit reality, and that's casual.   But I will continue to try to educate you all the same.

Thank me.


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is *in Shia*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need *antie* to teach us such things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lol. Good catch!
> 
> Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.
> 
> It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.
> 
> So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it was a language, the question stands.....WHAT is the driving religious Beliefs of the Iranian Mullahs?
> See if you can keep up, it seems to elude Nat.
Click to expand...

 
You're not eluding anyone there, *Antie*.......Yes, part of the Shia doctrine allows and even encourgaes to LIE whenever the situation warrants....But, so what? It isn't like we of the west, refrain from lying because of some strong religious belief. This "new" bent of yours borders on the moronic.

Yeah, yeah, you will never trust any Shia...and guess what? Most Shia wouldn't trust you either.....but I would hope that diplomacy is not as shallow and, beside, your hero Ronnie was correct for once...."trust AND verify."


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is *in Shia*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need *antie* to teach us such things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lol. Good catch!
> 
> Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.
> 
> It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.
> 
> So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it was a language, the question stands.....WHAT is the driving religious Beliefs of the Iranian Mullahs?
> See if you can keep up, it seems to elude Nat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not eluding anyone there, *Antie*.......Yes, part of the Shia doctrine allows and even encourgaes to LIE whenever the situation warrants....But, so what? It isn't like we of the west, refrain from lying because of some strong religious belief. This "new" bent of yours borders on the moronic.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you will never trust any Shia...and guess what? Most Shia wouldn't trust you either.....but I would hope that diplomacy is not as shallow and, beside, your hero Ronnie was correct for once...."trust AND verify."
Click to expand...


Zzzz.  A TENET of the FAITH calls upon the Muslims to LIE.

What tenet of any faith CALLS upon the folks who are not Muslims to lie?


----------



## Siete

IlarMeilyr said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> 
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am well aware of your ignorance.  My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.
> 
> I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.
> 
> Thank me.
Click to expand...



post #2937 says nothing about REMOVING a treaty ... you must have imagined that part.

You're welcome.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Siete said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am well aware of your ignorance.  My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.
> 
> I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> post #2937 says nothing about REMOVING a treaty ... you must have imagined that part.
> 
> You're welcome.
Click to expand...


His response addressed a different point. Try to keep up.  Here.  I'll help.

What Antares CORRECTLY noted was that your Obamessiah has contended that HIS prospective executive agreement could not be undone.  But, of course, it CAN be.

I don't much care what your alleged pointless was addressing, and I have nowhere discussed your silly little musings in that post.  Don't cherry pick.


----------



## Faun

IlarMeilyr said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate. I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you remain a willfully dishonest hack bitch whining that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.
> 
> check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, your synapses don't fire with enough frequency for you to comprehend he couldn't rebuff me since he didn't even address my point that Bush was the last president to break a Senate-approved treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the problem is all yours.  YOU refuse to concede that Obumbler claims that his NON treaty executive agreement cannot be undone.  He nailed you.
> 
> I know you will still decline to admit reality, and that's casual.   But I will continue to try to educate you all the same.
> 
> Thank me.
Click to expand...

You remain terminally stupid as I never said anything about that. You're so senile, you've actually convinced yourself that ant nailed me on a subject I've never even discussed -- which you _think_ he did while actually avoiding what I did discuss. 

You're a fucking loon.


----------



## Siete

IlarMeilyr said:


> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am well aware of your ignorance.  My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.
> 
> I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> post #2937 says nothing about REMOVING a treaty ... you must have imagined that part.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His response addressed a different point. Try to keep up.  Here.  I'll help.
> 
> What Antares CORRECTLY noted was that your Obamessiah has contended that HIS prospective executive agreement could not be undone.  But, of course, it CAN be.
> 
> I don't much care what your alleged pointless was addressing, and I have nowhere discussed your silly little musings in that post.  Don't cherry pick.
Click to expand...



quit moving the goal posts. You've lost this one LuLu.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Siete said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Siete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're dealing with a foul mouthed hack who doesn't know his butt from his right foot. Cut his ignorance loose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am well aware of your ignorance.  My right foot is right there at the end of my right leg.
> 
> I can get someone to assist you with right and left, if you want.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> post #2937 says nothing about REMOVING a treaty ... you must have imagined that part.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His response addressed a different point. Try to keep up.  Here.  I'll help.
> 
> What Antares CORRECTLY noted was that your Obamessiah has contended that HIS prospective executive agreement could not be undone.  But, of course, it CAN be.
> 
> I don't much care what your alleged pointless was addressing, and I have nowhere discussed your silly little musings in that post.  Don't cherry pick.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> quit moving the goal posts. You've lost this one LuLu.
Click to expand...


I didn't lose anything.  Your baseless self-declaration of victory remains baseless. 

But I can keep trying to educate you.

Antares was eminently correct.

Thank me.


----------



## nat4900

Dot Com said:


> Cotton doesn't take long to sidle up to def contractor buddies (crony capitalism)
> 
> Tom Cotton calls for defense spending boost - Adam B. Lerner - POLITICO


 
Please help me, I'm a bit confused.....Between Cotton and the defense contractors, who is the "whore" and who is the "pimp"? Just wondering...


----------



## nat4900

There's only one way that right wingers on here can "win" an argument...They just keep hammering on the same stupid assertion over, and over, and over again, until it is obvious that you're dealing with delusional lunatics....and at that point, one gives up and the sickos "think" they've won....as any delusional bully would.

Bottom line: They're powerless and use this forum to vent their frustrations and delusions.


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is *in Shia*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need *antie* to teach us such things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Lol. Good catch!
> 
> Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.
> 
> It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.
> 
> So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.*
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never said it was a language, the question stands.....WHAT is the driving religious Beliefs of the Iranian Mullahs?
> See if you can keep up, it seems to elude Nat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not eluding anyone there, *Antie*.......Yes, part of the Shia doctrine allows and even encourgaes to LIE whenever the situation warrants....But, so what? It isn't like we of the west, refrain from lying because of some strong religious belief. This "new" bent of yours borders on the moronic.
> 
> Yeah, yeah, you will never trust any Shia...and guess what? Most Shia wouldn't trust you either.....but I would hope that diplomacy is not as shallow and, beside, your hero Ronnie was correct for once...."trust AND verify."
Click to expand...


LOL, you are getting your ass handed to you here kid....they can lie about anything and everything in order to hide from or further their Allah inspired aims.
you really do suck at this.

You have admitted that they lie and in the next breath you insinuate that we can "believe" them about Nukes.

Did you check your brain at the door kid?

I can go on making you look ridiculous all day son.


----------



## Antares

Siete said:


> Treaties with foreign countries are negotiated and signed by the executive branch, but ratification only occurs after the Senate gives its approval in a two-thirds vote. But there’s another kind of agreement beyond treaties -- indeed, they represent a growing share of agreements in recent decades. They are known as "executive agreements."
> 
> The procedure for treaties is spelled out in the Constitution, but there’s little in the Constitution about executive agreements. Their authority comes instead from longstanding practice, as well as the support of such Supreme Court cases as _United States vs. Belmont_ (1936), _United States vs. Pink _(1941), and _Dames and Moore vs. Regan_ (1981).




...and Exec Agreements are not legally binding.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

natwit said:
			
		

> There's only one way that right wingers on here can "win" an argument...They just keep hammering on the same stupid assertion over, and over, and over again, until it is obvious that you're dealing with delusional lunatics....and at that point, one gives up and the sickos "think" they've won....as any delusional bully would.
> 
> Bottom line: They're powerless and use this forum to vent their frustrations and delusions.




^ Said natwit as he mindlessly repeats his invalid contention for the umpteenth time, not noticing the irony.


----------



## Antares

Faun said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate.* I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.
Click to expand...


I respond with a fact that makes you look bad....again.

IF Obama walked away from an Exec Action that Billy Boy instituted why would he insist we comply with one HE did...especially when it is clearly not in anyone's best interest?

Give it up kid....making you look bad is no big deal, hell you almost make Lakhota and franco look intelligent.


----------



## Siete

nat4900 said:


> There's only one way that right wingers on here can "win" an argument...They just keep hammering on the same stupid assertion over, and over, and over again, until it is obvious that you're dealing with delusional lunatics....and at that point, one gives up and the sickos "think" they've won....as any delusional bully would.
> 
> Bottom line: They're powerless and use this forum to vent their frustrations and delusions.



actually, theres three. 1.Your way 2. they keep calling people stupid 3. keep telling themselves they won.


----------



## Antares

Faun said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typically shallow of you.  Utterly unpersuasive claptrap.
> 
> Tsk tsk.
> 
> The point you attempted to evade was that Obumbler contends that we are somehow obligated to comply with a non treaty executive agreement.
> 
> Antares nailed your ass and you are too dishonest to admit or or too fucking tragically stupid to even know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you're also a moron who doesn't know he didn't respond to what I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you remain a willfully dishonest hack bitch whining that your pointless was soundly rebuffed by Antares.
> 
> check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unfortunately, your synapses don't fire with enough frequency for you to comprehend he couldn't rebuff me since he didn't even address my point that Bush was the last president to break a Senate-approved treaty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, the problem is all yours.  YOU refuse to concede that Obumbler claims that his NON treaty executive agreement cannot be undone.  He nailed you.
> 
> I know you will still decline to admit reality, and that's casual.   But I will continue to try to educate you all the same.
> 
> Thank me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain terminally stupid as I never said anything about that. You're so senile, you've actually convinced yourself that ant nailed me on a subject I've never even discussed -- which you _think_ he did while actually avoiding what I did discuss.
> 
> You're a fucking loon.
Click to expand...


You are as clueless as anyone I've ever met kid.


----------



## nat4900

See. *Siete*, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....

Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....

Their only "contributions" boil down to this:

1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)

2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?

3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.

Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nitwit said:
			
		

> See. *Siete*, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....
> 
> Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....
> 
> Their only "contributions" boil down to this:
> 
> 1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)
> 
> 2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?
> 
> 3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.
> 
> Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.



nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.  

Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.

Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

IIar 10986130 





IlarMeilyr said:


> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.



Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran     from acquiring nuclear capacity.  That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved, 

Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.


----------



## Wry Catcher

NotfooledbyW said:


> IIar 10986130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran     from acquiring nuclear capacity.  That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,
> 
> Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.
Click to expand...


Agree.  It's the conservative way, the truth will set them free from power and elected office.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fools here are the ones who would even contemplate supporting a nuclear Iran.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> so you are of the neocon hive mind (attack first & ask questions later). BTW- you ever serve? When, where?
Click to expand...


Serving has nothing at all to do with anything, as I'm sure you know.  I know enough about Iran and it's noncompliance with all treaties to know that this is a stupid idea.  

You are the one of the hive mind, assuming that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a "neo con."  Foolish.  I'm a libertarian.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> IIar 10986130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran     from acquiring nuclear capacity.  That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,
> 
> Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.
Click to expand...


And frees Iran up to obtain and use uranium.

Did you understand that?  It LOOSENS sanctions on Iran.  Duh.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least they are showing that they CARE more about the country than party politics.  What do WE get out of a nuclear Iran???  What is the benefit/risk ratio?
> 
> 
> 
> They CARE about the leading israel lobby backlash & defense contractor , campaign $$$ oh naive one.  ChrisL
Click to expand...


I don't think so.  You are just a partisan hack who doesn't have the balls to go against your leader, even when he's being an idiot.  

So tell me Dot, you agree with loosening sanctions on Iran and you believe they have no intentions of building a weapon?  

Why don't you just admit that you would jump through hoops to protect Obama and to hell with common sense.


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> nitwit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See. *Siete*, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....
> 
> Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....
> 
> Their only "contributions" boil down to this:
> 
> 1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)
> 
> 2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?
> 
> 3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.
> 
> Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.
Click to expand...

 

Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)

Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?

Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?


----------



## ChrisL

Wry Catcher said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> IIar 10986130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran     from acquiring nuclear capacity.  That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,
> 
> Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  It's the conservative way, the truth will set them free from power and elected office.
Click to expand...


What's your opinion on Iran.  You trust the Iranian mullahs?  Do you know about their prophecies of the 12th Imam?  Do you think they just make this shit up?  Of course not, they are a religious theocracy who believes this crap.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See. *Siete*, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....
> 
> Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....
> 
> Their only "contributions" boil down to this:
> 
> 1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)
> 
> 2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?
> 
> 3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.
> 
> Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)
> 
> Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?
> 
> Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
> Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
> Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?
Click to expand...


We could impose SANCTIONS on them.  We give them ALL aid money.  I know we gave NK aid money up until 2008.  I'm not sure if we are still giving them money.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least they are showing that they CARE more about the country than party politics.  What do WE get out of a nuclear Iran???  What is the benefit/risk ratio?
> 
> 
> 
> They CARE about the leading israel lobby backlash & defense contractor , campaign $$$ oh naive one.  ChrisL
Click to expand...


Good.  If anyone would know the most about Iran, it would be Israel because of their excellent intelligence.  Why would we NOT listen to them?  They are our ally like it or not.


----------



## ChrisL

So . . . dumbarses, I'm not a republican or a "neo con".  Now what?    Going to keep trying to use partisan attacks because I think President Obama is a moron, which he is.  Face facts, he is a want to be celebrity who has no CLUE.


----------



## bendog

ChrisL said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See. *Siete*, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....
> 
> Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....
> 
> Their only "contributions" boil down to this:
> 
> 1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)
> 
> 2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?
> 
> 3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.
> 
> Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)
> 
> Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?
> 
> Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
> Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
> Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could impose SANCTIONS on them.  We give them ALL aid money.  I know we gave NK aid money up until 2008.  I'm not sure if we are still giving them money.
Click to expand...


The sanctions are imposed internationally.  If we walk away, so do the sanctions.

List of United Nations resolutions concerning Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## ChrisL

bendog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See. *Siete*, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....
> 
> Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....
> 
> Their only "contributions" boil down to this:
> 
> 1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)
> 
> 2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?
> 
> 3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.
> 
> Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)
> 
> Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?
> 
> Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
> Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
> Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could impose SANCTIONS on them.  We give them ALL aid money.  I know we gave NK aid money up until 2008.  I'm not sure if we are still giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sanctions are imposed internationally.  If we walk away, so do the sanctions.
> 
> List of United Nations resolutions concerning Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Obviously, you didn't read my prior link about how Obama is violating the sanctions.  He has to go through a UN Security Council resolution or he doesn't have a leg to stand on.  He has to go back, make a new deal and water down the current sanctions that were set in motion by GWB.


----------



## ChrisL

bendog said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See. *Siete*, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....
> 
> Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....
> 
> Their only "contributions" boil down to this:
> 
> 1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)
> 
> 2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?
> 
> 3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.
> 
> Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit thinks that straightforward opposition to what Obumbler proposes is not sufficient.
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)
> 
> Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?
> 
> Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
> Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
> Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We could impose SANCTIONS on them.  We give them ALL aid money.  I know we gave NK aid money up until 2008.  I'm not sure if we are still giving them money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The sanctions are imposed internationally.  If we walk away, so do the sanctions.
> 
> List of United Nations resolutions concerning Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Do ever read any links provided?


----------



## IlarMeilyr

Wry Catcher said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> IIar 10986130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran     from acquiring nuclear capacity.  That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,
> 
> Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  It's the conservative way, the truth will set them free from power and elected office.
Click to expand...


fool doesn't even understand what "breakout" time refers to.

so agree with  him at your peril.


----------



## bendog

I don't read your links, Chris, because you are an ideologue who bases his beliefs on emotions and your assumptions of other cultures.  Yes, the sanctions have to go through the UN.  However, the point is that if other countries see the US as the party that said NYET, they are not going to be willing to continue hurting their own economic well being by continuing the sanctions, either legally or illegally.  And the notion of using "unilateral sanctions" to influence Russia or China is ludicrous, if that was what you suggested.

Why don't we wait to see what's actually proposed before trashing it.


----------



## IlarMeilyr

nitwit said:
			
		

> * * * *
> 
> Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)
> 
> Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?



Shitbird:

What I call opposition is the opposite of caving in.  I realize that concept is too difficult for a sap lib.  But still, you asked. 

We have a thing called "sanctions."  We could -- stay with us here for a moment, you goober -- increase those sanctions and deny the Iranians access to the materiel needed to make nuclear fuel and bombs.  We could spy on them from the air and otherwise.  We could, theoretically, even dispatch a couple of j-dams if they came to dangerously close to completeion.  (Psst.  It's happened before.)



			
				nitwit said:
			
		

> Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
> Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
> Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?



See above.  The "desire" of NK to assist Iran is not the determinative factor.  Putin and Russia are subject to all kinds of meaningful diplomacy.  Too bad nobody ever advised your Obumblermessiah.  And even china has been known to get motivated by what it considers its own self interest.  Are you truly so narrow of vision that you think they would risk war just as they are emerging as a preeminent superpower?

I know.  I know.  All of this is tough stuff fraught with many complications.  So YOUR first and only option is to toss up your hands in the air and just give in, give up, quit and roll over.  I may have gotten the order wrong.


----------



## ChrisL

READ this.  

Opinio Juris Blog Archive Iran Responds to US Senators Letter Shows Why Congress Should Be Involved in the First Place - Opinio Juris

Zarif is no doubt right as a matter of international law (assuming there will be a binding agreement as opposed to a mere political commitment).  But think about it.  Why should a president be allowed to commit the US to binding obligations under international law that neither Congress nor a future President can withdraw from without violating international law?  Shouldn’t such a president be required to first get approval from Congress before committing the United States to this path? Isn’t that why there is a Treaty Clause in the first place? At the very least, doesn’t it make constitutional sense for Congress to have a right to weigh in?

So while lefty blogs and lefty senators are having a field day accusing the Republican senators of violating the law or exaggerating Jack Goldsmith’s pretty minor quibble with the letter’s use of the term ratification, they are ignoring the real constitutional question here.  The President seems ready to commit the United States to a pretty serious and important international obligation without seeking prior or subsequent approval from Congress.  And foreign countries are ready to denounce the United States if, say Congress, decides to pull out or refuses to carry out those obligations. Even if the President’s actions are good policy, it seems like a political and constitutional train wreck that could easily be avoided if the Administration simply agreed to send the Iran deal to Congress.

Way back in 2008, leading scholars like Oona Hathaway and Bruce Ackerman repeatedly denounced President Bush for considering executing a security agreement with Iraq without Congress. Where are the academic defenders of Congress’s foreign policy prerogatives now?


----------



## ChrisL

bendog said:


> I don't read your links, Chris, because you are an ideologue who bases his beliefs on emotions and your assumptions of other cultures.  Yes, the sanctions have to go through the UN.  However, the point is that if other countries see the US as the party that said NYET, they are not going to be willing to continue hurting their own economic well being by continuing the sanctions, either legally or illegally.  And the notion of using "unilateral sanctions" to influence Russia or China is ludicrous, if that was what you suggested.
> 
> Why don't we wait to see what's actually proposed before trashing it.



1.  You don't read links, but I'm the ideologue.  Lol.  Funny as hell.  
2.  I am a she, not a he.  
3.  Read the links and educate yourself please.  You sound dumb.  
4.  Sanctions are not nearly as ludicrous as what your president is about to do.


----------



## ChrisL

bendog said:


> I don't read your links, Chris, because you are an ideologue who bases his beliefs on emotions and your assumptions of other cultures.  Yes, the sanctions have to go through the UN.  However, the point is that if other countries see the US as the party that said NYET, they are not going to be willing to continue hurting their own economic well being by continuing the sanctions, either legally or illegally.  And the notion of using "unilateral sanctions" to influence Russia or China is ludicrous, if that was what you suggested.
> 
> Why don't we wait to see what's actually proposed before trashing it.



Ah, to your last statement.  I posted you a link that outlined what the plan actually is, but YOU don't read links because you would rather remain uneducated.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Good.  If anyone would know the most about Iran, it would be Israel because of their excellent intelligence.  Why would we NOT listen to them?  They are our ally like it or not.


And that intelligence agency has said Iran has not weaponized their nuclear program.

*Benjamin Netanyahu claim on Iran nuclear bomb was contradicted by Israel intelligence agency Mossad: report*


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> See. *Siete*, you're correct...there's really no winning an argument with these dolts.....
> 
> Notice, however, that they offer NOTHING as an alternative to what Obama may be proposing.....
> 
> Their only "contributions" boil down to this:
> 
> 1. MORE sanctions (these are the "moderates" among the hawks.....As if sanctions have ever worked.)
> 
> 2. If more sanctions are imposed and folks in China and Russia violate those sanctions, then these dingbats clamor for a cold war with those other 2 super-powers. Yep, no problems there, right?
> 
> 3. The real "brainy" hawks then state...NUKE the bastards.....and we all know where that little scenario would lead us.
> 
> Again, bottom line is that these hawks are here just to express their hatred of Obama...pissing in the wind and thinking that such piss is manna from heaven.



Don't quit your day job kid, a Diplomat you aren't 

\It takes real intelligence to think you can "negotiate" with a group (who by your own admission) can lie about whatever they want.

Look, I'm sorry that is not smart in ANYBODY'S world....any agreement reached with a Government like that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good.  If anyone would know the most about Iran, it would be Israel because of their excellent intelligence.  Why would we NOT listen to them?  They are our ally like it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> And that intelligence agency has said Iran has not weaponized their nuclear program.
> 
> *Benjamin Netanyahu claim on Iran nuclear bomb was contradicted by Israel intelligence agency Mossad: report*
Click to expand...


The point is not how far off they are from making a bomb.  The point is that if we lift sanctions, then they are allowed to collect and enrich uranium.  What do you NOT understand about that?  Right now, there are sanctions that prevent them from doing such things.


----------



## nat4900

For those on this thread who can think on their own......

If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....

"Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....

The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> For those on this thread who can think on their own......
> 
> If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....
> 
> "Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....
> 
> The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."



(smile) Negotiating is doing nothing, they will not (again as you've admitted) live up to it....

We haven't even gotten into their belief system yet here, mostly because you don't want to know what it is.


----------



## Antares

Lest any of you Lefty children forget, Iran fought Iraq for 8 years...they are not a formidable force.

A few well placed Daisy Cutters and their program is in ruins.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> For those on this thread who can think on their own......
> 
> If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....
> 
> "Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....
> 
> The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."



It has helped, idiot.  They haven't built a bomb yet, have they?  Sanctions WORK.  What your president is suggesting is to give them more leeway to create a nuclear weapon.  Good Lord, you people are effing stupid.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> For those on this thread who can think on their own......
> 
> If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....
> 
> "Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....
> 
> The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."



"The Enemy is us."  Yes, you and your liberal friends are truly the enemies of our country and the rest of the civilized world.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> The point is not how far off they are from making a bomb.  The point is that if we lift sanctions, then they are allowed to collect and enrich uranium.  What do you NOT understand about that?  Right now, there are sanctions that prevent them from doing such things.


The point is, there shouldn't be any sanctions at all.  Iran hasn't done anything wrong.  And they have every right in the world to enrich uranium for peaceful energy purposes.

This is nothing more than a witch hunt.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is not how far off they are from making a bomb.  The point is that if we lift sanctions, then they are allowed to collect and enrich uranium.  What do you NOT understand about that?  Right now, there are sanctions that prevent them from doing such things.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, there shouldn't be any sanctions at all.  Iran hasn't done anything wrong.  And they have every right in the world to enrich uranium for peaceful energy purposes.
> 
> This is nothing more than a witch hunt.
Click to expand...


LOL, they are the largest sponsors of Terrorism in the World


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> LOL, they are the largest sponsors of Terrorism in the World


That's the big lie everyone keeps telling.  Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 300 years.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, they are the largest sponsors of Terrorism in the World
> 
> 
> 
> That's the big lie everyone keeps telling.  Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 300 years.
Click to expand...


 They have Hamas and Hezbollah for that.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> They have Hamas and Hezbollah for that.


Those are both fighting against Israeli aggression.  AKA, self defense.


----------



## Antares

Antares said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point is not how far off they are from making a bomb.  The point is that if we lift sanctions, then they are allowed to collect and enrich uranium.  What do you NOT understand about that?  Right now, there are sanctions that prevent them from doing such things.
> 
> 
> 
> The point is, there shouldn't be any sanctions at all.  Iran hasn't done anything wrong.  And they have every right in the world to enrich uranium for peaceful energy purposes.
> 
> This is nothing more than a witch hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, they are the largest sponsors of Terrorism in the World
Click to expand...



*"IRAN

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah.  It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain.  Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East.  The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.  

Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary.  In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria.  Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role.  There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations.  In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria.  This was the first publicly announced death of a senior Iranian military official in Syria.  In November, IRGC-QF commander Mohammad Jamalizadeh Paghaleh was also killed in Aleppo, Syria.  Subsequent Iranian media reports stated that Paghaleh was volunteering in Syria to defend the Sayyida Zainab mosque, which is located in Damascus.  The location of Paghaleh’s death, over 200 miles away from the mosque he was reported to be protecting, demonstrated Iran’s intent to mask the operations of IRGC-QF forces in Syria.  

Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war.  Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701.  Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran.  These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Asad regime in Syria.

Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups.  The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry.  Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants then use these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria, often at the behest of Iran.

On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen.  The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives.  The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen.  Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region.  

In late April 2013, the Government of Bosnia declared two Iranian diplomats, Jadidi Sohrab and Hamzeh Dolab Ahmad, persona non grata after Israeli intelligence reported they were members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.  One of the two men had been spotted in India, Georgia, and Thailand, all of which were sites of a simultaneous bombing campaign in February 2012, according to Israeli intelligence.  Both diplomats were subsequently expelled from Bosnia.  

On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain, specifically the 14 February Youth Coalition (14 FYC).  Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain.  The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals.

Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.  Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria.  Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years.  Al-Fadhli began working with the Iran-based AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities.  He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.  

Iran remains a state of proliferation concern.  Despite multiple UNSCRs requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.  For further information, see the Report to Congress on Iran-related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts (November 2013), and the Report on the Status of Bilateral and Multilateral Efforts Aimed at Curtailing the Pursuit of Iran of Nuclear Weapons Technology (September 2012).  "


Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview

Next!
*


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> *"IRAN
> 
> Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah.  It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain.  Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East.  The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
> 
> Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary.  In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria.  Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role.  There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations.  In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria.  This was the first publicly announced death of a senior Iranian military official in Syria.  In November, IRGC-QF commander Mohammad Jamalizadeh Paghaleh was also killed in Aleppo, Syria.  Subsequent Iranian media reports stated that Paghaleh was volunteering in Syria to defend the Sayyida Zainab mosque, which is located in Damascus.  The location of Paghaleh’s death, over 200 miles away from the mosque he was reported to be protecting, demonstrated Iran’s intent to mask the operations of IRGC-QF forces in Syria.
> 
> Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war.  Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701.  Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran.  These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Asad regime in Syria.
> 
> Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups.  The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry.  Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants then use these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria, often at the behest of Iran.
> 
> On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen.  The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives.  The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen.  Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region.
> 
> In late April 2013, the Government of Bosnia declared two Iranian diplomats, Jadidi Sohrab and Hamzeh Dolab Ahmad, persona non grata after Israeli intelligence reported they were members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.  One of the two men had been spotted in India, Georgia, and Thailand, all of which were sites of a simultaneous bombing campaign in February 2012, according to Israeli intelligence.  Both diplomats were subsequently expelled from Bosnia.
> 
> On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain, specifically the 14 February Youth Coalition (14 FYC).  Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain.  The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals.
> 
> Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.  Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria.  Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years.  Al-Fadhli began working with the Iran-based AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities.  He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.
> 
> Iran remains a state of proliferation concern.  Despite multiple UNSCRs requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.  For further information, see the Report to Congress on Iran-related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts (November 2013), and the Report on the Status of Bilateral and Multilateral Efforts Aimed at Curtailing the Pursuit of Iran of Nuclear Weapons Technology (September 2012).  "
> 
> 
> Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview
> 
> Next!*


I really wouldn't go there, since we happen to be the biggest arms dealer on the planet.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, they are the largest sponsors of Terrorism in the World
> 
> 
> 
> That's the big lie everyone keeps telling.  Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 300 years.
Click to expand...


They attack people by proxy.  Duh.  Iran is one of the biggest supporters and funders of terrorism in the ME.  Why do you think their neighbors all hate them so?


----------



## bendog

They haven't attack us.  And, we did overthrow a govt there and gave poison gas to saddam, maiming tens of thousands of their soldiers.  I'm not saying they're good guys, but I don't see the evidence that they are insane homicidal jihadist terrorists who will not stop till all our heads are cut off.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"IRAN
> 
> Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah.  It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain.  Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East.  The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
> 
> Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary.  In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria.  Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role.  There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations.  In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria.  This was the first publicly announced death of a senior Iranian military official in Syria.  In November, IRGC-QF commander Mohammad Jamalizadeh Paghaleh was also killed in Aleppo, Syria.  Subsequent Iranian media reports stated that Paghaleh was volunteering in Syria to defend the Sayyida Zainab mosque, which is located in Damascus.  The location of Paghaleh’s death, over 200 miles away from the mosque he was reported to be protecting, demonstrated Iran’s intent to mask the operations of IRGC-QF forces in Syria.
> 
> Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war.  Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701.  Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran.  These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Asad regime in Syria.
> 
> Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups.  The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry.  Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants then use these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria, often at the behest of Iran.
> 
> On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen.  The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives.  The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen.  Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region.
> 
> In late April 2013, the Government of Bosnia declared two Iranian diplomats, Jadidi Sohrab and Hamzeh Dolab Ahmad, persona non grata after Israeli intelligence reported they were members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.  One of the two men had been spotted in India, Georgia, and Thailand, all of which were sites of a simultaneous bombing campaign in February 2012, according to Israeli intelligence.  Both diplomats were subsequently expelled from Bosnia.
> 
> On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain, specifically the 14 February Youth Coalition (14 FYC).  Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain.  The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals.
> 
> Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.  Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria.  Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years.  Al-Fadhli began working with the Iran-based AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities.  He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.
> 
> Iran remains a state of proliferation concern.  Despite multiple UNSCRs requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.  For further information, see the Report to Congress on Iran-related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts (November 2013), and the Report on the Status of Bilateral and Multilateral Efforts Aimed at Curtailing the Pursuit of Iran of Nuclear Weapons Technology (September 2012).  "
> 
> 
> Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview
> 
> Next!*
> 
> 
> 
> I really wouldn't go there, since we happen to be the biggest arms dealer on the planet.
Click to expand...


You mean, you have no intelligent responses to the facts, so you have to go and try to bring the US into this.  As Yoda would say, Pathetic you are.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

bendog said:


> They haven't attack us.  And, we did overthrow a govt there and gave poison gas to saddam, maiming tens of thousands of their soldiers.  I'm not saying they're good guys, but I don't see the evidence that they are insane homicidal jihadist terrorists who will not stop till all our heads are cut off.



That's because you refuse to read links and educate yourself, so you remain ignorant of the facts.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"IRAN
> 
> Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah.  It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain.  Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East.  The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
> 
> Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary.  In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria.  Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role.  There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations.  In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria.  This was the first publicly announced death of a senior Iranian military official in Syria.  In November, IRGC-QF commander Mohammad Jamalizadeh Paghaleh was also killed in Aleppo, Syria.  Subsequent Iranian media reports stated that Paghaleh was volunteering in Syria to defend the Sayyida Zainab mosque, which is located in Damascus.  The location of Paghaleh’s death, over 200 miles away from the mosque he was reported to be protecting, demonstrated Iran’s intent to mask the operations of IRGC-QF forces in Syria.
> 
> Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war.  Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701.  Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran.  These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Asad regime in Syria.
> 
> Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups.  The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry.  Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants then use these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria, often at the behest of Iran.
> 
> On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen.  The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives.  The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen.  Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region.
> 
> In late April 2013, the Government of Bosnia declared two Iranian diplomats, Jadidi Sohrab and Hamzeh Dolab Ahmad, persona non grata after Israeli intelligence reported they were members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.  One of the two men had been spotted in India, Georgia, and Thailand, all of which were sites of a simultaneous bombing campaign in February 2012, according to Israeli intelligence.  Both diplomats were subsequently expelled from Bosnia.
> 
> On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain, specifically the 14 February Youth Coalition (14 FYC).  Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain.  The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals.
> 
> Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.  Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria.  Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years.  Al-Fadhli began working with the Iran-based AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities.  He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.
> 
> Iran remains a state of proliferation concern.  Despite multiple UNSCRs requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.  For further information, see the Report to Congress on Iran-related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts (November 2013), and the Report on the Status of Bilateral and Multilateral Efforts Aimed at Curtailing the Pursuit of Iran of Nuclear Weapons Technology (September 2012).  "
> 
> 
> Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview
> 
> Next!*
> 
> 
> 
> I really wouldn't go there, since we happen to be the biggest arms dealer on the planet.
Click to expand...


Well you said it was a lie and I proved you wrong.

Sorry.


----------



## Antares

bendog said:


> They haven't attack us.  And, we did overthrow a govt there and gave poison gas to saddam, maiming tens of thousands of their soldiers.  I'm not saying they're good guys, but I don't see the evidence that they are insane homicidal jihadist terrorists who will not stop till all our heads are cut off.



Oh the irony


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL10956880 





ChrisL said:


> That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama.



Most Americans do agree with Mr. Obama.

"Do you favor or oppose direct diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Iran in an attempt to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons?"

Favor 68%         Oppose. 29%       No opinion 04%.     Mar. 13-15 2015

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/16/iran.poll.pdf


Yet you are still pretending they don't. Why do you post false information?


----------



## Dot Com

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, they are the largest sponsors of Terrorism in the World
> 
> 
> 
> That's the big lie everyone keeps telling.  Iran hasn't attacked anyone in over 300 years.
Click to expand...

I know right? But rw'ers would have us believe that they are "shoot-first, ask-questions-later" like our Repubs & most of our Dems are.


----------



## Dot Com

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"IRAN
> 
> Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah.  It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain.  Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East.  The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
> 
> Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary.  In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria.  Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role.  There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations.  In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria.  This was the first publicly announced death of a senior Iranian military official in Syria.  In November, IRGC-QF commander Mohammad Jamalizadeh Paghaleh was also killed in Aleppo, Syria.  Subsequent Iranian media reports stated that Paghaleh was volunteering in Syria to defend the Sayyida Zainab mosque, which is located in Damascus.  The location of Paghaleh’s death, over 200 miles away from the mosque he was reported to be protecting, demonstrated Iran’s intent to mask the operations of IRGC-QF forces in Syria.
> 
> Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war.  Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701.  Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran.  These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Asad regime in Syria.
> 
> Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups.  The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry.  Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants then use these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria, often at the behest of Iran.
> 
> On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen.  The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives.  The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen.  Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region.
> 
> In late April 2013, the Government of Bosnia declared two Iranian diplomats, Jadidi Sohrab and Hamzeh Dolab Ahmad, persona non grata after Israeli intelligence reported they were members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.  One of the two men had been spotted in India, Georgia, and Thailand, all of which were sites of a simultaneous bombing campaign in February 2012, according to Israeli intelligence.  Both diplomats were subsequently expelled from Bosnia.
> 
> On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain, specifically the 14 February Youth Coalition (14 FYC).  Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain.  The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals.
> 
> Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.  Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria.  Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years.  Al-Fadhli began working with the Iran-based AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities.  He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.
> 
> Iran remains a state of proliferation concern.  Despite multiple UNSCRs requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.  For further information, see the Report to Congress on Iran-related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts (November 2013), and the Report on the Status of Bilateral and Multilateral Efforts Aimed at Curtailing the Pursuit of Iran of Nuclear Weapons Technology (September 2012).  "
> 
> 
> Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview
> 
> Next!*
> 
> 
> 
> I really wouldn't go there, since we happen to be the biggest arms dealer on the planet.
Click to expand...

excellent point


----------



## Antares

Dot Com said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"IRAN
> 
> Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity, including support for Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and for Hizballah.  It has also increased its presence in Africa and attempted to smuggle arms to Houthi separatists in Yemen and Shia oppositionists in Bahrain.  Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and its regional proxy groups to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East.  The IRGC-QF is the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.
> 
> Iran views Syria as a crucial causeway in its weapons supply route to Hizballah, its primary beneficiary.  In 2013, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of Iraqi Shia fighters to the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown, a crackdown that has resulted in the death of more than 100,000 civilians in Syria.  Iran has publicly admitted sending members of the IRGC to Syria in an advisory role.  There are reports indicating some of these troops are IRGC-QF members and that they have taken part in direct combat operations.  In February, senior IRGC-QF commander Brigadier General Hassan Shateri was killed in or near Zabadani, Syria.  This was the first publicly announced death of a senior Iranian military official in Syria.  In November, IRGC-QF commander Mohammad Jamalizadeh Paghaleh was also killed in Aleppo, Syria.  Subsequent Iranian media reports stated that Paghaleh was volunteering in Syria to defend the Sayyida Zainab mosque, which is located in Damascus.  The location of Paghaleh’s death, over 200 miles away from the mosque he was reported to be protecting, demonstrated Iran’s intent to mask the operations of IRGC-QF forces in Syria.
> 
> Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including the Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war.  Since the end of the 2006 Israeli-Hizballah conflict, Iran has also assisted in rearming Hizballah, in direct violation of UNSCR 1701.  Iran has provided hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Hizballah in Lebanon and has trained thousands of its fighters at camps in Iran.  These trained fighters often use these skills in support of the Asad regime in Syria.
> 
> Despite its pledge to support Iraq’s stabilization, Iran trained, funded, and provided guidance to Iraqi Shia militant groups.  The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of sophisticated improvised explosive device technology and other advanced weaponry.  Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants then use these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria, often at the behest of Iran.
> 
> On January 23, 2013, Yemeni authorities seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan, off the coast of Yemen.  The dhow was carrying sophisticated Chinese antiaircraft missiles, C-4 explosives, rocket-propelled grenades, and a number of other weapons and explosives.  The shipment of lethal aid was likely headed to Houthi separatists in Northern Yemen.  Iran actively supports members of the Houthi movement, including activities intended to build military capabilities, which could pose a greater threat to security and stability in Yemen and the surrounding region.
> 
> In late April 2013, the Government of Bosnia declared two Iranian diplomats, Jadidi Sohrab and Hamzeh Dolab Ahmad, persona non grata after Israeli intelligence reported they were members of Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security.  One of the two men had been spotted in India, Georgia, and Thailand, all of which were sites of a simultaneous bombing campaign in February 2012, according to Israeli intelligence.  Both diplomats were subsequently expelled from Bosnia.
> 
> On December 29, 2013, the Bahraini Coast Guard interdicted a speedboat filled with weapons and explosives that was likely bound for Shia oppositionists in Bahrain, specifically the 14 February Youth Coalition (14 FYC).  Bahraini authorities accused the IRGC-QF of providing opposition militants with explosives training in order to carry out attacks in Bahrain.  The interdiction led to the discovery of two weapons and explosives cache sites in Bahrain, the dismantling of a car bomb, and the arrest of 15 Bahraini nationals.
> 
> Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qa’ida (AQ) members it continued to detain, and refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.  Iran allowed AQ facilitators Muhsin al-Fadhli and Adel Radi Saqr al-Wahabi al-Harbi to operate a core facilitation pipeline through Iran, enabling AQ to move funds and fighters to South Asia and also to Syria.  Al-Fadhli is a veteran AQ operative who has been active for years.  Al-Fadhli began working with the Iran-based AQ facilitation network in 2009 and was later arrested by Iranian authorities.  He was released in 2011 and assumed leadership of the Iran-based AQ facilitation network.
> 
> Iran remains a state of proliferation concern.  Despite multiple UNSCRs requiring Iran to suspend its sensitive nuclear proliferation activities, Iran continued to violate its international obligations regarding its nuclear program.  For further information, see the Report to Congress on Iran-related Multilateral Sanctions Regime Efforts (November 2013), and the Report on the Status of Bilateral and Multilateral Efforts Aimed at Curtailing the Pursuit of Iran of Nuclear Weapons Technology (September 2012).  "
> 
> 
> Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 State Sponsors of Terrorism Overview
> 
> Next!*
> 
> 
> 
> I really wouldn't go there, since we happen to be the biggest arms dealer on the planet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> excellent point
Click to expand...


You kids just aren't prepared intellectually for any of this Dottie.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## Faun

Antares said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? What Senate confirmed treaty was that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate.* I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond with a fact that makes you look bad....again.
> 
> IF Obama walked away from an Exec Action that Billy Boy instituted why would he insist we comply with one HE did...especially when it is clearly not in anyone's best interest?
> 
> Give it up kid....making you look bad is no big deal, hell you almost make Lakhota and franco look intelligent.
Click to expand...

Actually, you responded with a non sequitur which not only didn't address the post you were responding to, you laid down a "fact" I had never said anything about. That you think doing so makes me look bad is as idiotic as if I say to you, _Obama travels on Air Force One._ There, I said it. It's a fact and you can't refute it. Damn, I just made you look bad!


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate.* I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond with a fact that makes you look bad....again.
> 
> IF Obama walked away from an Exec Action that Billy Boy instituted why would he insist we comply with one HE did...especially when it is clearly not in anyone's best interest?
> 
> Give it up kid....making you look bad is no big deal, hell you almost make Lakhota and franco look intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you responded with a non sequitur which not only didn't address the post you were responding to, you laid down a "fact" I had never said anything about. That you think doing so makes me look bad is as idiotic as if I say to you, _Obama travels on Air Force One._ There, I said it. It's a fact and you can't refute it. Damn, I just made you look bad!
Click to expand...


No, you didn't.  Lol.


----------



## Siete

The possible agreement with Iran is being negotiated between the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus one: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, plus Germany. So for the agreement to be truly modified, the other signatories would have to sign off.

Congress could pass legislation that conflicts with the agreement, effectively "modifying" it. But Congress' ability to carry this out is more difficult than the senators' blithe language suggests. "It would take presidential acquiescence or a supermajority -- two-thirds to override a veto -- for Congress to act independently to stiffen sanctions.


----------



## 1stRambo

Yo, your beloved killer, Ted Kennedy, may he burn in HELL! Here is your man, and what a traitor he was!

Senator Teddy Kennedy (D-MA). In 1983, Teddy Kennedy sent emissaries to the Soviets to undermine Ronald Reagan's foreign policy._According to a memo finally released in 1991_ from head of the KGB Victor Chebrikov to then-Soviet leader Yuri Andropov:

On 9-10 May of this year, Sen. Edward Kennedy's close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.

What was the message? That Teddy would help stifle Reagan's anti-Soviet foreign policy if the Soviets would help Teddy run against Reagan in 1984.Kennedy offered to visit Moscow to "arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA." Then he said that he would set up interviews with Andropov in the United States. "Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews. . .Like other rational people, [Kennedy] is very troubled by the current state of Soviet-American relations," the letter explained. The memo concluded:

Tunney remarked that the senator wants to run for president in 1988. Kennedy does not discount that during the 1984 campaign, the Democratic Party may officially turn to him to lead the fight against the Republicans and elect their candidate president.

Yo, now move on, nothing here to see! If you wish to see the six other Democrat traitors, than read on!
7 Times Democrats Advised America s Enemies to Oppose the President - Breitbart

"GTP"

"OBAMA SUCKS"


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> Opposition to that kind of defeatism is its own reward.




Another way of stating the above........."I bitch therefore I am..."


----------



## suplex3000

Jimmy Carter destabilized the Middle East when he failed to support the Shah of Iran, our ally and also Israel's ally. The rise of radical Islam began under Carter. It was American false and only America have to fix it.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate.* I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond with a fact that makes you look bad....again.
> 
> IF Obama walked away from an Exec Action that Billy Boy instituted why would he insist we comply with one HE did...especially when it is clearly not in anyone's best interest?
> 
> Give it up kid....making you look bad is no big deal, hell you almost make Lakhota and franco look intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you responded with a non sequitur which not only didn't address the post you were responding to, you laid down a "fact" I had never said anything about. That you think doing so makes me look bad is as idiotic as if I say to you, _Obama travels on Air Force One._ There, I said it. It's a fact and you can't refute it. Damn, I just made you look bad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you didn't.  Lol.
Click to expand...

By ant's standards, I just squashed him like a bug. All one has to do is ignore what he posts; respond with a non sequitur that isn't being debated; declare it as fact and do a celebration dance.


----------



## Siete

Siete said:


> The possible agreement with Iran is being negotiated between the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus one: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, plus Germany. So for the agreement to be truly modified, the other signatories would have to sign off.
> 
> Congress could pass legislation that conflicts with the agreement, effectively "modifying" it. But Congress' ability to carry this out is more difficult than the senators' blithe language suggests. "It would take presidential acquiescence or a supermajority -- two-thirds to override a veto -- for Congress to act independently to stiffen sanctions.




ignored ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## nat4900

IlarMeilyr said:


> nitwit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Dingbat...what you call [empty] opposition is a refusal of REALITY (which is yet another definition of your ilk's delusion.)
> 
> Soooooo, exactly what IS your way of avoiding that "inevitability"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shitbird:
> 
> What I call opposition is the opposite of caving in.  I realize that concept is too difficult for a sap lib.  But still, you asked.
> 
> We have a thing called "sanctions."  We could -- stay with us here for a moment, you goober -- increase those sanctions and deny the Iranians access to the materiel needed to make nuclear fuel and bombs.  We could spy on them from the air and otherwise.  We could, theoretically, even dispatch a couple of j-dams if they came to dangerously close to completeion.  (Psst.  It's happened before.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nitwit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will North Korea all of a sudden not want to help Iran.
> Will Russia....just out of Putin's good will.....all of a sudden want to stop helping Iran (and Syria.)?
> Will China stop buying Iran's oil lest they use that money for furthering their nuclear ambitions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See above.  The "desire" of NK to assist Iran is not the determinative factor.  Putin and Russia are subject to all kinds of meaningful diplomacy.  Too bad nobody ever advised your Obumblermessiah.  And even china has been known to get motivated by what it considers its own self interest.  Are you truly so narrow of vision that you think they would risk war just as they are emerging as a preeminent superpower?
> 
> I know.  I know.  All of this is tough stuff fraught with many complications.  So YOUR first and only option is to toss up your hands in the air and just give in, give up, quit and roll over.  I may have gotten the order wrong.
Click to expand...



All your snide remarks aside (which is 90% of your posts) exactly WHO made you judge and jury and sentence of what another sovereign country wants to do about arming itself?? Especially since it arch enemy (Israel) has 200 nukes already?

Do I want for Iran to have nukes??? NOOOOoooo!!!

Do I want for multilateral disbarment of this suicidal weapons??? YYYeessss!!


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> Don't quit your day job kid, a Diplomat you aren't
> 
> \It takes real intelligence to think you can "negotiate" with a group (who by your own admission) can lie about whatever they want.
> 
> Look, I'm sorry that is not smart in ANYBODY'S world....any agreement reached with a Government like that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.



Well, with dingbats like your ilk, negotiations would indeed be impossible.

But given your "logic" about not dealing with people who lie......then nothing that our country could ever state should be taken seriously because WE TOO LIE.......Just ask Natives about our treaties with them


----------



## nat4900

;) They have Hamas and Hezbollah for that.[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> To which Iranians would retort...."....and you Americans, didn't you recently use the contras and mujahideens????"


----------



## nat4900

suplex3000 said:


> Jimmy Carter destabilized the Middle East when he failed to support the Shah of Iran, our ally and also Israel's ally. The rise of radical Islam began under Carter. It was American false and only America have to fix it.



No, not really...The Shah was a westernized playboy who roamed the world and left his military junta to maintain power and operate with Savak...the brutal Iranian secret service that prompted the revolution of 1979.

What began to really destabilize the ME, was the first gulf war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> I think President Obama is a moron,



You are the moron who posted that most Americans don't agree with Obama for taking part in P5+1 negotiations with Iran. Who should care what a proven moron thinks of Obama.


----------



## Wry Catcher

ChrisL said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only fools here are the ones who would even contemplate supporting a nuclear Iran.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> so you are of the neocon hive mind (attack first & ask questions later). BTW- you ever serve? When, where?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Serving has nothing at all to do with anything, as I'm sure you know.  I know enough about Iran and it's noncompliance with all treaties to know that this is a stupid idea.
> 
> You are the one of the hive mind, assuming that everyone who disagrees with Obama is a "neo con."  Foolish.  I'm a libertarian.
Click to expand...


Who wants Iran to be in possession of a nuclear bomb, and do provide evidence.


ChrisL said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> IIar 10986130
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obumbler -- like many of the liberals here -- contend that there is some kind of inevitability to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama contends that an agreement allows 1 year breakout time to stop Iran     from acquiring nuclear capacity.  That includes bombing their facilities long before nuclear capacity is achieved,
> 
> Your statement is a lie. It is not inevitable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree.  It's the conservative way, the truth will set them free from power and elected office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your opinion on Iran.  You trust the Iranian mullahs?  Do you know about their prophecies of the 12th Imam?  Do you think they just make this shit up?  Of course not, they are a religious theocracy who believes this crap.
Click to expand...


My opinion of Iran was formed when they committed an act of war by invading and occupying our embassy.  That said, there is no easy solution to the contemporary problem. 

Suggesting Obama wants them to have a bomb is simply hate and fear rhetoric; the only realistic policy is to negotiate, and if they refuse or violate any agreement, take targeted and limited military action.  The 47 Senators sabotaged a process solely for political purposes.  Anyone who supports what the 47 did is a fool, as is anyone who believes the 47 Senators acted out of patriotic duty.  I simply hope the Democrats don't stoop so low as to act in the same irresponsible manner if and when we elect a Republican to the oval office.


----------



## Antares

Faun said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"
> *
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The agreement sees signatories promise to protect Ukraine's borders
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> It was signed by Bill Clinton, John Major, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kuchma in 1994
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Ukrainian parliament has now reached out directly to all the countries who signed the treaty
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> Putin currently has 150,000 troops on Ukraine's borders and it is reported some have crossed into the country
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> President Obama says he is 'deeply concerned' by the news
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> The US and Britain have both made 'crisis calls' to President Putin to warn him to respect territorial boundaries
> *
> 
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570335/Former-British-Ambassador-Moscow-warns-Russia-invaded-Ukraine-difficult-avoid-going-war.html#ixzz3UeyGPU92
> Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook[/B]
> 
> *Always glad to help with your education, now this is an Executive Action...let's see you dance around the fact that Obammy broke this one and expects us to honor the one he is doing *
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate.* I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond with a fact that makes you look bad....again.
> 
> IF Obama walked away from an Exec Action that Billy Boy instituted why would he insist we comply with one HE did...especially when it is clearly not in anyone's best interest?
> 
> Give it up kid....making you look bad is no big deal, hell you almost make Lakhota and franco look intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you responded with a non sequitur which not only didn't address the post you were responding to, you laid down a "fact" I had never said anything about. That you think doing so makes me look bad is as idiotic as if I say to you, _Obama travels on Air Force One._ There, I said it. It's a fact and you can't refute it. Damn, I just made you look bad!
Click to expand...


You are embarrassing yourself, you responded to what I posted which opened that portion of the Conversation, had you not responded to the statement you might have a point like I said, I can go on busting you up all day kid.


----------



## Antares

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quit your day job kid, a Diplomat you aren't
> 
> \It takes real intelligence to think you can "negotiate" with a group (who by your own admission) can lie about whatever they want.
> 
> Look, I'm sorry that is not smart in ANYBODY'S world....any agreement reached with a Government like that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, with dingbats like your ilk, negotiations would indeed be impossible.
> 
> But given your "logic" about not dealing with people who lie......then nothing that our country could ever state should be taken seriously because WE TOO LIE.......Just ask Natives about our treaties with them
Click to expand...


I am still looking for intelligent liberal life....now, would you like to know about their belief system?

Or would that be too much reality for you?


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.



Which agreement was that?  

Here's what you don't get.  Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, the Russians living in Ukraine revolted against the usurpers in Kiev. 

I hope we didn't agree to get involved in their internal affairs.


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which agreement was that?
> 
> Here's what you don't get.  Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, the Russians living in Ukraine revolted against the usurpers in Kiev.
> 
> I hope we didn't agree to get involved in their internal affairs.
Click to expand...


I already posted it Joe, I'm not doing your work for you.

Billy Boy put it in place.


----------



## Faun

Antares said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why I don't take lessons from idiots like you. The treaty you mentioned was never approved by the senate. Bush broke a treaty which was.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lesson here kid is that Obama is breaking the same type of agreement that he trying to NOW say we must obey....you just aren't up to this kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're too fucking stupid for words. I point out that any deal can be broken, *even treaties approved by the Senate.* I then point to Bush as the last example of just such an action ... and you idiotically respond with a non sequitur  about an executive deal NOT approved by the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I respond with a fact that makes you look bad....again.
> 
> IF Obama walked away from an Exec Action that Billy Boy instituted why would he insist we comply with one HE did...especially when it is clearly not in anyone's best interest?
> 
> Give it up kid....making you look bad is no big deal, hell you almost make Lakhota and franco look intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you responded with a non sequitur which not only didn't address the post you were responding to, you laid down a "fact" I had never said anything about. That you think doing so makes me look bad is as idiotic as if I say to you, _Obama travels on Air Force One._ There, I said it. It's a fact and you can't refute it. Damn, I just made you look bad!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are embarrassing yourself, you responded to what I posted which opened that portion of the Conversation, had you not responded to the statement you might have a point like I said, I can go on busting you up all day kid.
Click to expand...

 I responded to you to tell you what a fucking moron you are. But hey, if that opened any doors for ya, more power to you.


----------



## Faun

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, your Boi King broke the treaty we signed with the Ukraine, they gave up weapons when we said we'd protect them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which agreement was that?
> 
> Here's what you don't get.  Russia didn't invade the Ukraine, the Russians living in Ukraine revolted against the usurpers in Kiev.
> 
> I hope we didn't agree to get involved in their internal affairs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already posted it Joe, I'm not doing your work for you.
> 
> Billy Boy put it in place.
Click to expand...

You seem to declare yourself the victor a lot. Do you really lack as much self-esteem as it seems?


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> I am still looking for intelligent liberal life....now, would you like to know about their belief system?
> 
> Or would that be too much reality for you?




I'd suggest you analyze for yourself YOUR OWN racist, bigoted, jingoistic, right wing, chicken hawk, belief system........

Don't bother bitching about the state of someone else's house when yours stinks to high heaven. If all else fails, go light up a cross.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Well you said it was a lie and I proved you wrong.
> 
> Sorry.


Providing arms to Hezbollah and Hamas, is not sponsoring terrorism.  Defending yourselves against foreign aggression, is not terrorism.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> You mean, you have no intelligent responses to the facts, so you have to go and try to bring the US into this.  As Yoda would say, Pathetic you are.  Lol.


The US is the biggest arms dealer on the planet.  We supply more arms, to more country's, than anyone else.  And that includes terrorist organizations like ISIS.  So for you (or anyone else) to be outraged over Iran  doing this and not outraged over the US for doing much more of this, just means you are one major fucking hypocrite.


----------



## nat4900

From an interesting article by G. Porter from the Middle East Eye

The Cotton letter makes arguments that are patently false. The letter suggested that any agreement that lacked approval of Congress “is a mere *executive agreement*”, as though such agreements are somehow of only marginal importance in US diplomatic history. In fact,* the agreements on withdrawal of US forces from both the wars in Vietnam and in Iraq were not treaties but executive agreements.*

The more serious problem with focusing on the Logan Act, however, is that what Cotton and his Republican colleagues were doing was not negotiating with a foreign government but trying to influence the outcome of negotiations _in the *interest*_ _of a foreign government_. The premise of the Senate Republican reflected in the letter – that Iran must not be allowed to have any enrichment capacity whatever – did not appear spontaneously. *The views that Cotton and the other Republicans have espoused on Iran were the product of assiduous lobbying by Israeli agents of influence using the inducement of promises of election funding and the threat of support for the members’ opponents in future elections.*


----------



## ChrisL

bendog said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability.  Period.
> 
> Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.
> 
> First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.
> 
> Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually we probably can keep Iran from getting a working nuke with an agreement and inspections.  They've stopped enriching uranium, and the IAEA has access for inspections.  Any deal would have to include unacceptable consequences falling on Iran if they re-commenced enrichment.
Click to expand...


Oh really?  Let's check on that.  

U.N. nuclear watchdog says pace of Iran s cooperation slow Reuters


(Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said on Monday Iran was being slow to cooperate with his agency's investigation into the Iranian atomic program and that the inquiry could not continue indefinitely.

Diplomats have voiced doubt over whether the outstanding issues in the U.N. investigation would be resolved before a broader diplomatic agreement is reached between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany.

The seven countries have set a deadline of late March for a framework deal and June for a comprehensive final settlement that would curb Iran's nuclear activity to ensure it cannot be put to bombmaking in return for the lifting of international sanctions that have hammered the oil-based Iranian economy.

When asked about a time frame for the U.N. inquiry running parallel to the higher-level negotiations, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said: "It depends on the level and pace of cooperation from Iran, I cannot tell by when...

"We have asked questions and the questions are clear, so (Iran) can answer."

The Islamic Republic has yet to address two outstanding issues relating to alleged explosives tests and other measures that might have been used for nuclear bomb research which it should have explained away by last August.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, you have no intelligent responses to the facts, so you have to go and try to bring the US into this.  As Yoda would say, Pathetic you are.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> The US is the biggest arms dealer on the planet.  We supply more arms, to more country's, than anyone else.  And that includes terrorist organizations like ISIS.  So for you (or anyone else) to be outraged over Iran  doing this and not outraged over the US for doing much more of this, just means you are one major fucking hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Do you have an unbiased link for your accusations against our country?  Maybe you should go live in Iran.  I think you would be happy there.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, you have no intelligent responses to the facts, so you have to go and try to bring the US into this.  As Yoda would say, Pathetic you are.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> The US is the biggest arms dealer on the planet.  We supply more arms, to more country's, than anyone else.  And that includes terrorist organizations like ISIS.  So for you (or anyone else) to be outraged over Iran  doing this and not outraged over the US for doing much more of this, just means you are one major fucking hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Fucking idiot.  You're probably one of those who would go fight with Islam against the US.  You fucking traitorous POS.


----------



## eagle1462010

nat4900 said:


> For those on this thread who can think on their own......
> 
> If you really discern what right wing idiots are stating, you too will see that the ONLY thing that they're suggesting is to do NOTHING.....
> 
> "Oppose this agreement," they'll shout, and propose NOTHING....
> 
> The other "bright" right wingers will also shout, MORE sanctions, as if that has helped, and since we don't trade with Iran (except, maybe, for pistacchios), these other nitwits want for China and Russia to impose these additional sanctions (which they won't do.)....OR, they want for these sanctions to come from our allies (France, Germany, UK) who by now have concluded that with tea-baggers in congress, they best work out their own deal with Iran beacuse our country has become so partisan that, as Pogo wisely stated, "the enemy is us."


Bovine post.

Maintaining strict Sanctions with a country you know will not honor them is not Nothing.........It is trying to delay or stop their production of a Nuclear weapon.  Even if they manage to get inspectors into Iran to monitor, Iran will use every method in the book to stall and avoid inspections of the real deal labs they have to continue their Nuclear Weapons capability.  

Obama and the P5 haven't reached a deal, as Iran is demanding more than the P5 is willing to give at this time..........but they may via political pressure cut a deal just to say look what we did.............and cut more sanctions than already agreed to and give Iran more money to research their true ambitions.

You don't make deals with the Devil...............If you know they will not honor it, then whats the point........

I haven't asked for more sanctions................I asked to maintain the sanctions in place, and put pressure on the countries still aiding and abetting the process...........Mainly Russia............Russia is part of the United Nations and they still give the tech for improvements in Iran even though they are AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW..........So much for IT'S THE LAW.............

As posted many times already.............Iran is CLASSIFIED as a STATE SPONSOR OF TERROR..............by the STATE DEPARTMENT.................and they have and will continue to do so.............Why cut a deal with that............Will they end their support of TERROR................Nope...........

We have already stopped Israel from hitting these sites...........Let them do it and get it over with.............Yes allow military strikes to deal with it.............and we don't even have to do the attack..............Iran has proxies attacking Israel all the time...........basically.........Israel is already in a proxy War with Iran and has been for a long time................

You will ignore my post............and continue with the insults..................and support a final deal that will end up being on paper and never really stop them from getting the weapons.......

Finally, why does the left wing agree to Iran getting Nuclear Power Plants when they don't want anymore here.............Iran sits on a Sea of Oil which will provide them all the power they will ever need.  But OH MY GOSH if they don't get Nuclear Power there their lights will go out.............

LIONS AND TIGERS AND BEARS.


----------



## deltex1

Where_r_my_Keys said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We do not even have a negotiated agreement with Iran and Republican Senators are attempting to  sabotage negotiations
> 
> Republicans would rather side with the radicals in Iran than Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMNAO!
> 
> So you're position is, as a person who represents themselves as an honest broker, coming ot debate the issue... that The "Radical" Islamists; which is the say the Islamists... in Tehran, are aligned with the 47 Americans in the Senate whose position is that the United States is not going to allow Iran to acquire the means to produce Nuclear Weapons?
> 
> 
> LOL!  You can NOT make this crap up.
> 
> Imagine that contributor's weeping and gnashing of tooth if someone had accused them of 'believing' that the Islamists in Tehran, who have for years now and, who are currently pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, are aligned with the Americans in the US Senate, in PREVENTING IRAN FROM PRODUCING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!
> 
> LMNAO!  Oh lordy, that is _ADORABLE!_
Click to expand...

The Jews just sent a letter to Obabble...


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> Fucking idiot. You're probably one of those who would go fight with Islam against the US. You fucking traitorous POS.




Ahhhhhhh, yet another right wing, neocon Shakespeare wanna-be.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Antares said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't quit your day job kid, a Diplomat you aren't
> 
> \It takes real intelligence to think you can "negotiate" with a group (who by your own admission) can lie about whatever they want.
> 
> Look, I'm sorry that is not smart in ANYBODY'S world....any agreement reached with a Government like that isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, with dingbats like your ilk, negotiations would indeed be impossible.
> 
> But given your "logic" about not dealing with people who lie......then nothing that our country could ever state should be taken seriously because WE TOO LIE.......Just ask Natives about our treaties with them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am still looking for intelligent liberal life....now, would you like to know about their belief system?
> 
> Or would that be too much reality for you?
Click to expand...


Fuck you.  I posted reality, dumb fucks/partisan hacks ignore it simply because they are stupid and assholes.  Is that how you want to be perceive?


----------



## Wry Catcher

Read about the debate of the Monroe Doctrine and try to comport its legitimacy with current affairs.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

10988412 





eagle1462010 said:


> Russia is part of the United Nations and they still give the tech for improvements in Iran even though they are AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW..



What is your source for that?

You have a penchant for making up your own realities.





NotfooledbyW said:


> "In June 2010, they sided with the Western powers rather than with Brazil and Turkey in the UNSC and voted for a fourth round of mandatory sanctions against Tehran for its continued pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities."
> 
> Source below:
> 
> ChrisL 10970853
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians and Chinese fight sanctions against Iran because they are allies of Iran. They are the holdouts. This has always been the case.
> 
> 
> 
> You know nothing about this subject - absolutely nothing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Previously, Chinese and Russian officials might have blamed the George W. Bush administration for its alleged threatening behavior for blocking a diplomatic settlement and even prompting fearful Iranians to consider acquiring nuclear weapons as a means to guarantee their security. But the Obama administration’s efforts to engage Iran in negotiations about its nuclear program and other issues have led many of them at least to hold the Ahmadinejad regime primarily responsible for the continuing crisis. At international meetings, Chinese and Russian leaders have visibly sought to minimize their public contact with Ahmadinejad and distance themselves from his fiery anti-Jewish and anti-Western rhetoric.
> 
> In June 2010, they sided with the Western powers rather than with Brazil and Turkey in the UNSC and voted for a fourth round of mandatory sanctions against Tehran for its continued pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities. These activities violate earlier Council resolutions prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium or undertaking other activities that could contribute to its developing nuclear weapons until Tehran had made its current and past nuclear work more transparent to the IAEA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why China and Russia Help Iran The Diplomat
Click to expand...


Why not back something that you write up once in a while?


----------



## ChrisL

bendog said:


> They haven't attack us.  And, we did overthrow a govt there and gave poison gas to saddam, maiming tens of thousands of their soldiers.  I'm not saying they're good guys, but I don't see the evidence that they are insane homicidal jihadist terrorists who will not stop till all our heads are cut off.



Some of their trained terrorists were responsible for killing some of our troops in Iraq.  They fund terrorist operations all over the ME.


----------



## ChrisL

Siete said:


> The possible agreement with Iran is being negotiated between the five permanent United Nations Security Council members plus one: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China, plus Germany. So for the agreement to be truly modified, the other signatories would have to sign off.
> 
> Congress could pass legislation that conflicts with the agreement, effectively "modifying" it. But Congress' ability to carry this out is more difficult than the senators' blithe language suggests. "It would take presidential acquiescence or a supermajority -- two-thirds to override a veto -- for Congress to act independently to stiffen sanctions.



No, sorry but Obama is the one going to have a hard time.  For one thing, the head of the IAEA says Iran is still being "slow to comply."  He says that could potentially interfere with Obama's stupid idiotic deal.  

U.N. nuclear watchdog says pace of Iran s cooperation slow Reuters


(Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said on Monday Iran was being slow to cooperate with his agency's investigation into the Iranian atomic program and that the inquiry could not continue indefinitely.

Diplomats have voiced doubt over whether the outstanding issues in the U.N. investigation would be resolved before a broader diplomatic agreement is reached between Iran and the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany.

The seven countries have set a deadline of late March for a framework deal and June for a comprehensive final settlement that would curb Iran's nuclear activity to ensure it cannot be put to bombmaking in return for the lifting of international sanctions that have hammered the oil-based Iranian economy.

When asked about a time frame for the U.N. inquiry running parallel to the higher-level negotiations, International Atomic Energy Agency chief Yukiya Amano said: "It depends on the level and pace of cooperation from Iran, I cannot tell by when...

"We have asked questions and the questions are clear, so (Iran) can answer."

The Islamic Republic has yet to address two outstanding issues relating to alleged explosives tests and other measures that might have been used for nuclear bomb research which it should have explained away by last August.


----------



## ChrisL

Fucking stupid idiots.


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot. You're probably one of those who would go fight with Islam against the US. You fucking traitorous POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhhh, yet another right wing, neocon Shakespeare wanna-be.
Click to expand...


What in the hell does that mean?  Apparently, you are just another moron.  Not to mention, thou art a partisan hacktard.  How's that for Shakesperean?


----------



## ChrisL

Liberals, they are the ones who volunteer their lunch money to the school bully in the hopes that he would "like" them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"Iran has already produced 75 percent of its reserves, so the likelihood of other major discoveries is low." Link below!!




eagle1462010 said:


> Iran sits on a Sea of Oil which will provide them all the power they will ever need.



So you really don't research what you put in your uninformed posts, do you?



> .
> *Oil*
> Iran is the second largest OPEC producer and the fifth largest globally (after Russia, Saudi Arabia, the United States and China). In 2010, it produced some 3.7 million barrels per day. Its oil sector is one of the oldest in the world. Production started in 1908 at the Masjid-i-Suleiman oil field. As a result, Iran has one of the world’s most mature oil sectors. About 80 percent of its reserves were discovered before 1965. Iran has already produced 75 percent of its reserves, so the likelihood of other major discoveries is low. Iran has made some important new discoveries in the past decade, such as the Yadavaran and Azadegan fields, but they have not been sufficeint to alter the trend in oil reserves depletion.
> The National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) has held crude production within the 3.8 million to 4.0 million barrels per day range for the last several years. This has been a major achievement since most oil sectors with depletion rates of 75 percent usually witness steep declines in production. Indeed, Iran’s base production is declining around 4 percent per year. The recently discovered new sources have allowed Iran to hold oil production relatively steady, and they may even help production levels to grow somewhat in the immediate future. But new sources will not be able to offset natural declines beyond the short-term. As a result, Iran will have to rely heavily on proven but undeveloped reserves, which will require major new investments. Production capacity is likely to fall because of geological constraints, the lack of domestic technical capacity, financial constraints and international sanctions.



When will you rely on facts Eagle?


----------



## Dot Com

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, you have no intelligent responses to the facts, so you have to go and try to bring the US into this.  As Yoda would say, Pathetic you are.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> The US is the biggest arms dealer on the planet.  We supply more arms, to more country's, than anyone else.  And that includes terrorist organizations like ISIS.  So for you (or anyone else) to be outraged over Iran  doing this and not outraged over the US for doing much more of this, just means you are one major fucking hypocrite.
Click to expand...

serious. That is pretty hypocritical.


----------



## ChrisL

Saudi Nuclear Deal Raises Stakes for Iran Talks - WSJ

Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a member of the royal family, has publicly warned in recent months that Riyadh will seek to match the nuclear capabilities Iran is allowed to maintain as part of any final agreement reached with world powers. This could include the ability to enrich uranium and to harvest the weapons-grade plutonium discharged in a nuclear reactor’s spent fuel.

Several U.S. and Arab officials have voiced concerns about a possible nuclear-arms race erupting in the Middle East, spurred on by Saudi Arabia’s regional rivalry with Iran, which has been playing out in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen in recent months.

“The proliferation of nuclear technologies is a nightmare the White House would like to discount rather than contemplate,” said Simon Henderson of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a Washington think tank. “This is more than just an imaginary threat.”

The memorandum of understanding between Saudi Arabia and South Korea includes a plan to study the feasibility of building two nuclear reactors worth $2 billion in the Arab country over the next 20 years, according to Saudi state media.

Current and former U.S. officials said there is particular concern about Saudi Arabia’s decadeslong military alliance with Pakistan, a nuclear-armed state with a history of proliferating military technologies.


----------



## nat4900

Lets say.....just for argument sake........that the excerpt (below) from an article is indeed true. How would you right wingers feel if you were thusly MANIPULATED by foreign lobbyists?

*The views that Cotton and the other Republicans have espoused on Iran were the product of assiduous lobbying by Israeli agents of influence using the inducement of promises of election funding and the threat of support for the members’ opponents in future elections.*


----------



## nat4900

...and you do realize right wingers that you are powerless to impact what another sovereign country wishes to do with its money, know-how and help from that country's allies?

You spew your hatred, profanity, 4th graders' insults, and bigotry on here......and you should know (or at least your remaining few brain cells should) that its all for naught......


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ...and you do realize right wingers that you are powerless to impact what another sovereign country wishes to do with its money, know-how and help from that country's allies?
> 
> You spew your hatred, profanity, 4th graders' insults, and bigotry on here......and you should know (or at least your remaining few brain cells should) that its all for naught......



No we are not.  We can nix Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> No we are not. We can *nix* Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.




Go right ahead, delusional Chrissy.....*nix* away.......LOL


----------



## ChrisL

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we are not. We can *nix* Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go right ahead, delusional Chrissy.....*nix* away.......LOL
Click to expand...


This is why I support the senators, understand yet?


----------



## Where_r_my_Keys

nat4900 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot. You're probably one of those who would go fight with Islam against the US. You fucking traitorous POS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhhh, yet another right wing, neocon Shakespeare wanna-be.
Click to expand...


Rightwing Neocon?

LOL!  Tolerant Liberals.

(Reader, I believe that one non sequitur deserves another.)


----------



## Ernie S.

nat4900 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't piss me off, you aren't intelligent enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell you what, I'm tired of the "personal" attacks when there's much more serious issues......and have the spine to tell your compatriots on here to use a bit less profanity as substitute for substance.
Click to expand...

Fuck off!


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> nat4900 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we are not. We can *nix* Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go right ahead, delusional Chrissy.....*nix* away.......LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why I support the senators, understand yet?
Click to expand...

you mean the *47* senators? Come n Chrissy. Take your partisan blinders off. You look silly.


----------



## Ernie S.

nat4900 said:


> Lets say.....just for argument sake........that the excerpt (below) from an article is indeed true. How would you right wingers feel if you were thusly MANIPULATED by foreign lobbyists?
> 
> *The views that Cotton and the other Republicans have espoused on Iran were the product of assiduous lobbying by Israeli agents of influence using the inducement of promises of election funding and the threat of support for the members’ opponents in future elections.*


Link to that?


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Do you have an unbiased link for your accusations against our country?  Maybe you should go live in Iran.  I think you would be happy there.


Here you go...



> _The United-States of America remains the largest exporter of conventional weapons in the world__, according to the latest study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The U.S account for 30% of global arms sales, or about $7 billion per year, for the period 2005-2009, SIPRI statement says. From 2005 to 2009, the U.S. sold one-third of its arm exports to South Korea (15%), Israel (13%) and the United Arab Emirates (11%)._


And don't forget about this one.

*How the US Supports the Islamic State (ISIS):*


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Fucking idiot.  You're probably one of those who would go fight with Islam against the US.  You fucking traitorous POS.


You're advocating doing the same thing the Nazis did in WWII, yet you're calling me the traitor?

You are one dumbass bitch!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> No, sorry but Obama is the one going to have a hard time. For one thing, the head of the IAEA says Iran is still being "slow to comply.*" He says that could potentially interfere with Obama's stupid idiotic deal*.
> 
> U.N. nuclear watchdog says pace of Iran s cooperation slow Reuters
> 
> Why do yo blatantly lie and post a link to prove you lied?
> 
> "The IAEA remains ready to accelerate the resolution of all outstanding issues, Amano added, but "this process cannot continue indefinitely". *Iran's leading negotiator Abbas Araqchi met with Amano last week, promising swifter cooperation,* but neither side has spelled out any details."
> 
> They are still negotiating and Obama says its 50/50 on reaching a deal. So maybe these couple issues are part of it   You don't known.   So you lie to call it Obama's stupid deal.
> 
> From your link;
> 
> 
> 
> *The IAEA is likely to monitor the implementation of any deal between Iran and the six powers.* Amano said he proposed a 1.8-percent increase to the body's 344-million-euro ($386 million) budget given increased demand for its services.
> 
> He reiterated deep concern about the nuclear activities of North Korea, which quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1993. The IAEA has not had inspectors on the ground there since they were expelled by North Korea in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> . (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said on Monday Iran was being slow to cooperate with his agency's investigation into the Iranian atomic program and that the inquiry could not continue indefinitely.
Click to expand...


Do you want Iran to go back to being like North Korea on nuclear issues and kick the inspectors out?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10989091 





ChrisL said:


> We can nix Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.



They can't nix the P4+1 and Iran from proceeding and Obama won't veto any UNSC sanctions modifications at the UNSC.

You live in a right wing dream world.

That is why you will always be a fool. Republicans cannot do anything without Dem Senator support and now that Dems see what fools 47 Republican Senators and that support for the negotiations are still 2 to 1 in favor - they will stick with Obama instead of the idiot 47.

If Iran backs out at all it will allow their hardliners to,blame the US and the US loses respect from the P4+1. Iran can still proceed with making a deal,and then Obama can make the case to the American people that Republican hardliners aided and abetted Iran's hardliners in taking the US out of the historic deal that will make the world safer. Americans are 2 to 1 in favor of this deal since negotiations began. You have run away from that truth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10989112 





ChrisL said:


> This is why I support the senators, understand yet?



Being delusional is not a good reason to support 47 delusional Senators.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No we are not. We can nix Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.



Except- again- if the other P6 nations realize we aren't negotiating in good faith, they'll just lift the sanctions on their own.  

Amazing you don't get this.


----------



## nat4900

JoeB131 said:


> Except- again- if the other P6 nations realize we aren't negotiating in good faith, they'll just lift the sanctions on their own.




Its really _THAT_ simple.....(and shows the futility of the 47 nitwits' foot-stomping.)

Perhaps "good" theatre for the right wing base (which they would have regardless,) but real stupidity in the diplomacy arena,


----------



## nat4900

Additional excerpts from the Middle East Eye article.....

*Cotton’s Loyalty to Israel*

Rosenberg  (former AIPAC lobbyist) has reasoned that AIPAC must have drafted the letter and handed it to Senator Cotton. “Nothing happens on Capitol Hill related to Israel,” he tweets, “unless and until Howard Kohr (AIPAC chief) wants it to happen. Nothing.”

Senator Cotton just happens to be a protégé of neoconservative political kingpin Bill Kristol, whose Emergency Committee on Israel gave him nearly a million dollars late in his 2014 Senate campaign and guaranteed that Cotton would have the support of the four biggest funders of major anti-Iran organizations.

Cotton proved his absolute fealty to Likudist policy on Iran by sponsoring an amendment to the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013 that would have punished violators of the sanctions against Iran with prison sentences of up to 20 years and extended the punishment to “a spouse and any relative, to the third degree” of the sanctions violator. In presenting the amendment in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Cotton provided the useful clarification that it would have included “parents, children, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, grandparents, great grandparents, grandkids, great grandkids”.

That amendment, which he apparently believed would best reflect his adoption of the Israeli view of how to cut Iran down to size, was unsuccessful, but it established his reliability in the eyes of the Republican Likudist kingmakers. Now Kristol is grooming him to be the vice-presidential nominee in 2016.

So the real story behind the letter from Cotton and his Republican colleagues is how the enforcers of Likudist policy on Iran used an ambitious young Republican politician to try to provoke a breakdown in the Iran nuclear negotiations. The issue it raises is a far more serious issue than the Logan Act, but thus far major news organizations have steered clear of that story.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we are not. We can nix Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- again- if the other P6 nations realize we aren't negotiating in good faith, they'll just lift the sanctions on their own.
> 
> Amazing you don't get this.
Click to expand...

They cant lift our sanctions, passed by congress. As much as you leftist would like the U.N to run this country. Congress imposed the sanctions, they'll have to lift them.


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we are not. We can nix Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- again- if the other P6 nations realize we aren't negotiating in good faith, they'll just lift the sanctions on their own.
> 
> Amazing you don't get this.
Click to expand...

Yeah come on people. Its a no-brainer. Don't undercut the President.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jroc 10990642 





Jroc said:


> They cant lift our sanctions, passed by congress. As much as you leftist would like the U.N to run this country. Congress imposed the sanctions, they'll have to lift them.



How ignorant of the negotiations can you be?  Banking sanctions are international. Technical nuclear sanctions are through the UNSC and the US Congress cannot veto them retroactively. Congress can stop US unilateral sanctions from being lifted but that is stupid and childish considering the international community has been at this for nine years and finally getting close to a deal.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we are not. We can nix Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except- again- if the other P6 nations realize we aren't negotiating in good faith, they'll just lift the sanctions on their own.
> 
> Amazing you don't get this.
Click to expand...


Good faith is preventing Iran from getting nukes at ALL costs.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10989091
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can nix Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't nix the P4+1 and Iran from proceeding and Obama won't veto any UNSC sanctions modifications at the UNSC.
> 
> You live in a right wing dream world.
> 
> That is why you will always be a fool. Republicans cannot do anything without Dem Senator support and now that Dems see what fools 47 Republican Senators and that support for the negotiations are still 2 to 1 in favor - they will stick with Obama instead of the idiot 47.
> 
> If Iran backs out at all it will allow their hardliners to,blame the US and the US loses respect from the P4+1. Iran can still proceed with making a deal,and then Obama can make the case to the American people that Republican hardliners aided and abetted Iran's hardliners in taking the US out of the historic deal that will make the world safer. Americans are 2 to 1 in favor of this deal since negotiations began. You have run away from that truth.
Click to expand...


According to my links, anything Obama does unilaterally is not beholden to the next administration.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, sorry but Obama is the one going to have a hard time. For one thing, the head of the IAEA says Iran is still being "slow to comply.*" He says that could potentially interfere with Obama's stupid idiotic deal*.
> 
> U.N. nuclear watchdog says pace of Iran s cooperation slow Reuters
> 
> Why do yo blatantly lie and post a link to prove you lied?
> 
> "The IAEA remains ready to accelerate the resolution of all outstanding issues, Amano added, but "this process cannot continue indefinitely". *Iran's leading negotiator Abbas Araqchi met with Amano last week, promising swifter cooperation,* but neither side has spelled out any details."
> 
> They are still negotiating and Obama says its 50/50 on reaching a deal. So maybe these couple issues are part of it   You don't known.   So you lie to call it Obama's stupid deal.
> 
> From your link;
> 
> 
> 
> *The IAEA is likely to monitor the implementation of any deal between Iran and the six powers.* Amano said he proposed a 1.8-percent increase to the body's 344-million-euro ($386 million) budget given increased demand for its services.
> 
> He reiterated deep concern about the nuclear activities of North Korea, which quit the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1993. The IAEA has not had inspectors on the ground there since they were expelled by North Korea in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> . (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog chief said on Monday Iran was being slow to cooperate with his agency's investigation into the Iranian atomic program and that the inquiry could not continue indefinitely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you want Iran to go back to being like North Korea on nuclear issues and kick the inspectors out?
Click to expand...


They are not cooperative with inspectors now.  So . . . your solution is to give them the green light?  Lol.  

Not fooled by GWB, but totally fooled by Obama.  ROFL.  You people are SO foolish.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an unbiased link for your accusations against our country?  Maybe you should go live in Iran.  I think you would be happy there.
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The United-States of America remains the largest exporter of conventional weapons in the world__, according to the latest study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The U.S account for 30% of global arms sales, or about $7 billion per year, for the period 2005-2009, SIPRI statement says. From 2005 to 2009, the U.S. sold one-third of its arm exports to South Korea (15%), Israel (13%) and the United Arab Emirates (11%)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And don't forget about this one.
> 
> *How the US Supports the Islamic State (ISIS):*
Click to expand...




Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot.  You're probably one of those who would go fight with Islam against the US.  You fucking traitorous POS.
> 
> 
> 
> You're advocating doing the same thing the Nazis did in WWII, yet you're calling me the traitor?
> 
> You are one dumbass bitch!
Click to expand...


Oh really?  Where have I advocated for anything like that, liar?  YOU, on the other hand, are a traitor.  If you lived in Iran, you would have been hung or stoned to death a LONG time ago.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have an unbiased link for your accusations against our country?  Maybe you should go live in Iran.  I think you would be happy there.
> 
> 
> 
> Here you go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The United-States of America remains the largest exporter of conventional weapons in the world__, according to the latest study by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The U.S account for 30% of global arms sales, or about $7 billion per year, for the period 2005-2009, SIPRI statement says. From 2005 to 2009, the U.S. sold one-third of its arm exports to South Korea (15%), Israel (13%) and the United Arab Emirates (11%)._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And don't forget about this one.
> 
> *How the US Supports the Islamic State (ISIS):*
Click to expand...


Ah, so Obama supports ISIS, gotcha.


----------



## BullKurtz

Dot Com said:


> Yeah come on people. Its a no-brainer. Don't undercut the President.



When the president is a fucking muslim traitor "undercutting" him is only a first step.


----------



## nat4900

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrL 10989091
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can nix Obama's stupid plan, which does MORE to help Iran than doing nothing and leaving current more strict sanctions in place, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can't nix the P4+1 and Iran from proceeding and Obama won't veto any UNSC sanctions modifications at the UNSC.
> 
> You live in a right wing dream world.
> 
> That is why you will always be a fool. Republicans cannot do anything without Dem Senator support and now that Dems see what fools 47 Republican Senators and that support for the negotiations are still 2 to 1 in favor - they will stick with Obama instead of the idiot 47.
> 
> If Iran backs out at all it will allow their hardliners to,blame the US and the US loses respect from the P4+1. Iran can still proceed with making a deal,and then Obama can make the case to the American people that Republican hardliners aided and abetted Iran's hardliners in taking the US out of the historic deal that will make the world safer. Americans are 2 to 1 in favor of this deal since negotiations began. You have run away from that truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *According to my links, anything Obama does unilaterally is not beholden to the next administration*.
Click to expand...

 
Then, technically we are STILL at war with Vietnam since that war ended with just an executive agreement......Who knew?


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US is the biggest arms dealer on the planet.  We supply more arms, to more country's, than anyone else.  And that includes terrorist organizations like ISIS.  So for you (or anyone else) to be outraged over Iran  doing this and not outraged over the US for doing much more of this, just means you are one major fucking hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking idiot.  You're probably one of those who would go fight with Islam against the US.  You fucking traitorous POS.
Click to expand...

meltdown is delicious


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10991936 





ChrisL said:


> They are not cooperative with inspectors now.



They were late on a couple issues. The deal isn't closed yet so those two issues  can be resolved as part of the deal by a certain date. So do you have a count on how many issues Iran has been cooperative on? You probably don't since you've shown no signs of being informed on this subject. It has to be more than two issues. 


I pointed out that you were not truthful in stating what the inspectors had to say so are you ever going to address your persistent dishonesty on this matter or will you continue to run away from it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10991928 





ChrisL said:


> According to my links, anything Obama does unilaterally is not beholden to the next administration.



Unilaterally in what sense? P5+1 is a multilateral negotiation going on since 2006. The next Administration can't undue (in a practical and moral sense) much if a deal is made and Iran complies and does not ever attempt to breakout from peaceful nuclear power to trying to build a bomb.  They will be stopped if a violation occurs and that includes any member state having the right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

Nothing changes in that regard except outsiders will have better intelligence if military strikes should be needed.

So "beholden" is a farcical concept in this whole scenario specifically if Iran complies for the next 15 years with their agreement with the west and China and Russia.


----------



## ChrisL

Hey, I've said everything I wanted to say on this thread.  I've posted a whole bunch of links.  If you still think this is a good idea, then you are fucked.  I'm done with this thread now, unless some new information happens to come up.    Arguing with you guys is useless, as you are too partisan and too much in love with the Obamanator.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> Hey, I've said everything I wanted to say on this thread.  I've posted a whole bunch of links.  If you still think this is a good idea, then you are fucked.  I'm done with this thread now, unless some new information happens to come up.    Arguing with you guys is useless, as you are too partisan and too much in love with the Obamanator.




You had no response to this and dozens of other replies to you from me and many other intelligent and loyal Americans.  


NF 10990152 





NotfooledbyW said:


> They can't nix the P4+1 and Iran from proceeding and Obama won't veto any UNSC sanctions modifications at the UNSC.



When boxed in you post meaningless links and the meaningful ones you lie about the content. So run, just go ahead and run and hang out with your measly pitiful minority of obsessed Obama haters who oppose this deal going through.

We are weary of hearing how your unintelligent minority is right and the majority in the whole wide world is wrong based upon your lies and misinformation.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> 10988412
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russia is part of the United Nations and they still give the tech for improvements in Iran even though they are AGAINST INTERNATIONAL LAW..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your source for that?
> 
> You have a penchant for making up your own realities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In June 2010, they sided with the Western powers rather than with Brazil and Turkey in the UNSC and voted for a fourth round of mandatory sanctions against Tehran for its continued pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities."
> 
> Source below:
> 
> ChrisL 10970853
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Russians and Chinese fight sanctions against Iran because they are allies of Iran. They are the holdouts. This has always been the case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know nothing about this subject - absolutely nothing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Previously, Chinese and Russian officials might have blamed the George W. Bush administration for its alleged threatening behavior for blocking a diplomatic settlement and even prompting fearful Iranians to consider acquiring nuclear weapons as a means to guarantee their security. But the Obama administration’s efforts to engage Iran in negotiations about its nuclear program and other issues have led many of them at least to hold the Ahmadinejad regime primarily responsible for the continuing crisis. At international meetings, Chinese and Russian leaders have visibly sought to minimize their public contact with Ahmadinejad and distance themselves from his fiery anti-Jewish and anti-Western rhetoric.
> 
> In June 2010, they sided with the Western powers rather than with Brazil and Turkey in the UNSC and voted for a fourth round of mandatory sanctions against Tehran for its continued pursuit of sensitive nuclear activities. These activities violate earlier Council resolutions prohibiting Iran from enriching uranium or undertaking other activities that could contribute to its developing nuclear weapons until Tehran had made its current and past nuclear work more transparent to the IAEA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why China and Russia Help Iran The Diplomat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why not back something that you write up once in a while?
Click to expand...

Congressional Record Vol. 144-Part 7 Proceedings and Debates of the 105th ... - Google Books


----------



## Dot Com

And people roll their eyes when i say that republicorp has waged a war against our great nation for years.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've said everything I wanted to say on this thread.  I've posted a whole bunch of links.  If you still think this is a good idea, then you are fucked.  I'm done with this thread now, unless some new information happens to come up.    Arguing with you guys is useless, as you are too partisan and too much in love with the Obamanator.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had no response to this and dozens of other replies to you from me and many other intelligent and loyal Americans.
> 
> 
> NF 10990152
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> They can't nix the P4+1 and Iran from proceeding and Obama won't veto any UNSC sanctions modifications at the UNSC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When boxed in you post meaningless links and the meaningful ones you lie about the content. So run, just go ahead and run and hang out with your measly pitiful minority of obsessed Obama haters who oppose this deal going through.
> 
> We are weary of hearing how your unintelligent minority is right and the majority in the whole wide world is wrong based upon your lies and misinformation.
Click to expand...


I SAID I'm done with you fools.  You can continue to worship your God, Obama.  Lol.  The smart people who have read the many links I've provided are capable of free thinking without the shackles of partisanship.  Have a nice life!


----------



## eagle1462010

Nuclear Power in Iran


----------



## eagle1462010

nat4900 said:


> ...and you do realize right wingers that you are powerless to impact what another sovereign country wishes to do with its money, know-how and help from that country's allies?
> 
> You spew your hatred, profanity, 4th graders' insults, and bigotry on here......and you should know (or at least your remaining few brain cells should) that its all for naught......


It's all for not when we have a pussy in the WH.........which of course you adore................Our Nation has the capability to impact that program.........either by allowing Israel to hit them or taking them out ourselves..................

BOOM...............GONE..............which could set their program quite a bit.............

Iran's Allies.............Russia and China who are helping them build Nuclear plants and with research and training..........are you finally recognizing that they are Iran's allies....................informative.........

When you finally realize they are our enemy,..............get back to me.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010

As Obama abandon's Israel to the utter Joy of the liberal Brigade..................


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10995064 





ChrisL said:


> I SAID I'm done with you fools. You can continue to worship your God, Obama.



I see your closing and only argument against a steady presentation of actual facts and solid reason is that our arguments are solely based upon worship of Obama. 

How is it that nearly two years of polling data that shows,  as recent as this week, that the majority of Americans by a 2 to 1 margin support the negotiations with Iran that Obama
has been engaged with five other major nations, is somehow the result of Obama worship and according to you only the opposite is true. 

Do you see how we know for certain that you are running away from very solid facts and the lies you have told to deny them? 

So run, your record is very clear and not in dispute. You are completely wrong.


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10995064
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I SAID I'm done with you fools. You can continue to worship your God, Obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see your closing and only argument against a steady presentation of actual facts and solid reason is that our arguments are solely based upon worship of Obama.
> 
> How is it that nearly two years of polling data that shows,  as recent as this week, that the majority of Americans by a 2 to 1 margin support the negotiations with Iran that Obama
> has been engaged with five other major nations, is somehow the result of Obama worship and according to you only the opposite is true.
> 
> Do you see how we know for certain that you are running away from very solid facts and the lies you have told to deny them?
> 
> So run, your record is very clear and not in dispute. You are completely wrong.
Click to expand...


Do you think that we should be Governed by opinion polls?


----------



## nat4900

Antares said:


> Do you think that we should be Governed by opinion polls?




Of course, not.......EXCEPT when such polls favor right wingers....correct?


----------



## nat4900

eagle1462010 said:


> It's all for not when we have a pussy in the WH.........which of course you adore................Our Nation has the capability to impact that program.........either by allowing Israel to hit them or taking them out ourselves..................
> 
> BOOM...............GONE..............which could set their program quite a bit.............
> 
> Iran's Allies.............Russia and China who are helping them build Nuclear plants and with research and training..........are you finally recognizing that they are Iran's allies....................informative.........
> 
> When you finally realize they are our enemy,..............get back to me.




If I felt that you had half a brain, I'd tell you how much I DO NOT "worship" Obama......I have a lot of problems with his policies.

Be that as it may, sure, nuke Iran and see what happens.....the least of those problems may be a southerly wind right back to Israel.


----------



## eagle1462010

nat4900 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's all for not when we have a pussy in the WH.........which of course you adore................Our Nation has the capability to impact that program.........either by allowing Israel to hit them or taking them out ourselves..................
> 
> BOOM...............GONE..............which could set their program quite a bit.............
> 
> Iran's Allies.............Russia and China who are helping them build Nuclear plants and with research and training..........are you finally recognizing that they are Iran's allies....................informative.........
> 
> When you finally realize they are our enemy,..............get back to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I felt that you had half a brain, I'd tell you how much I DO NOT "worship" Obama......I have a lot of problems with his policies.
> 
> Be that as it may, sure, nuke Iran and see what happens.....the least of those problems may be a southerly wind right back to Israel.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't nuke them........I'm put some bunker busters in those sites and say CENTRIFUGE THIS................

You must want Iran to get Nukes Mr. Gnat.............


----------



## Antares

Well placed Daisy Cutters.

Problem solved.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Anta 10995303 





Antares said:


> you think that we should be Governed by opinion



Not necessarily but my point is that
Losers such as ChrisL should not make claims that her hate filled obssesion against the nuclear negotiations is a majority American opinion. The polls are consistent for nearly two years that she is wrong by a factor of more than two to one. 

Don't make claims that are not backed up by anything other than hatred and ignorance in other words to put it bluntly.


----------



## occupied

Came across this today, it's a CNN show on daily life in Iran. All in all they seem to be a much more vibrant, educated and free society than our "friends" the Saudis who probably had a great deal to do with 9/11. They are far more westernized and developed than I expected and the food looked fucking incredible.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> Anta 10995303
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> you think that we should be Governed by opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily but my point is that
> Losers such as ChrisL should not make claims that her hate filled obssesion against the nuclear negotiations is a majority American opinion. The polls are consistent for nearly two years that she is wrong by a factor of more than two to one.
> 
> Don't make claims that are not backed up by anything other than hatred and ignorance in other words to put it bluntly.
Click to expand...


Ha-ha!!  Temper tantrum time!    By the way, the only loser around here is you and your friends who support a nuclear Iran.  That is the epitome of loserville and the ultimate in stupidity.  That must be where you come from, huh?  

You are just mad because your idol is making another stupid mistake.  Face it, your man that you love (man lover) Obama is a loser who makes retarded decisions.  It's quite obvious to everyone with a brain that he doesn't have America's best interests at heart.  

You must be angry that Bibi won the Israeli election, huh?  Too bad he couldn't be OUR president, as he is MUCH better than your man love Obama could ever hope to be.    Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> Anta 10995303
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> you think that we should be Governed by opinion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not necessarily but my point is that
> Losers such as ChrisL should not make claims that her hate filled obssesion against the nuclear negotiations is a majority American opinion. The polls are consistent for nearly two years that she is wrong by a factor of more than two to one.
> 
> Don't make claims that are not backed up by anything other than hatred and ignorance in other words to put it bluntly.
Click to expand...


Oh, all of my claims were backed with links.  You on the other hand have nothing but Obama man love.  To put it bluntly, you must want to suck him off.  I mean, that's pretty much what you and your gay lover friends have been doing this entire thread.    To Bibi!!!


----------



## ChrisL

eagle1462010 said:


> As Obama abandon's Israel to the utter Joy of the liberal Brigade..................



No kidding.  Some of the people who post here are complete retards.  Lol.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Hey, I've said everything I wanted to say on this thread.  I've posted a whole bunch of links.  If you still think this is a good idea, then you are fucked.  I'm done with this thread now, unless some new information happens to come up.    Arguing with you guys is useless, as you are too partisan and too much in love with the Obamanator.


Go fuck yourself, you little dishrag whore!

You're trying to start a war that could bring an end to all life on planet earth.

Your rhetoric goes way beyond irresponsible.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've said everything I wanted to say on this thread.  I've posted a whole bunch of links.  If you still think this is a good idea, then you are fucked.  I'm done with this thread now, unless some new information happens to come up.    Arguing with you guys is useless, as you are too partisan and too much in love with the Obamanator.
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself, you little dishrag whore!
> 
> You're trying to start a war that could bring an end to all life on planet earth.
> 
> Your rhetoric goes way beyond irresponsible.
Click to expand...


Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've said everything I wanted to say on this thread.  I've posted a whole bunch of links.  If you still think this is a good idea, then you are fucked.  I'm done with this thread now, unless some new information happens to come up.    Arguing with you guys is useless, as you are too partisan and too much in love with the Obamanator.
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself, you little dishrag whore!
> 
> You're trying to start a war that could bring an end to all life on planet earth.
> 
> Your rhetoric goes way beyond irresponsible.
Click to expand...


You are an Islamic woman-hating pig.    It's Islamics who wear dishrags on their heads, BTW.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Oh really?  Where have I advocated for anything like that, liar?  YOU, on the other hand, are a traitor.  If you lived in Iran, you would have been hung or stoned to death a LONG time ago.  Lol.


You're deliberately contributing to all the bullshit propaganda on Iran in order to start a war with them, so we can go in there and rape that country of its resources, just like we did with Iraq in 2003.

Your bullshit arguments are no different than the "Iraq had WMD's" crap being spewed 13 years ago.  You fuckers were wrong then and you're wrong now.

BTW, attacking a country that did not attack you first, is called a "war of aggression".  No different than the Nazis making up bullshit reasons to go into Poland.


----------



## ChrisL

Antares said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've said everything I wanted to say on this thread.  I've posted a whole bunch of links.  If you still think this is a good idea, then you are fucked.  I'm done with this thread now, unless some new information happens to come up.    Arguing with you guys is useless, as you are too partisan and too much in love with the Obamanator.
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself, you little dishrag whore!
> 
> You're trying to start a war that could bring an end to all life on planet earth.
> 
> Your rhetoric goes way beyond irresponsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  They declared us their enemy long ago.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.


The war could happen if people keep listening to racist, war-mongering assholes like you.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  Where have I advocated for anything like that, liar?  YOU, on the other hand, are a traitor.  If you lived in Iran, you would have been hung or stoned to death a LONG time ago.  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> You're deliberately contributing to all the bullshit propaganda on Iran in order to start a war with them, so we can go in there and rape that country of its resources, just like we did with Iraq in 2003.
> 
> Your bullshit arguments are no different than the "Iraq had WMD's" crap being spewed 13 years ago.  You fuckers were wrong then and you're wrong now.
> 
> BTW, attacking a country that did not attack you first, is called a "war of aggression".  No different than the Nazis making up bullshit reasons to go into Poland.
Click to expand...


You are an Islamic-loving woman-oppressing hateful pig.  That is all.  Now, stop addressing my posts.  I have no interest in you.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The war could happen if people keep listening to racist, war-mongering assholes like you.
Click to expand...


Look, nobody takes you seriously.  It's obvious that you are in love with Islam.  Why don't you go live in one of those craptard countries and do us all a favor?


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> The war could happen if people keep listening to racist, war-mongering assholes like you.
Click to expand...


Do you work at being this stupid?


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Exactly.  They declared us their enemy long ago.


And just when did they do this bigot?


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Look, nobody takes you seriously.  It's obvious that you are in love with Islam.  Why don't you go live in one of those craptard countries and do us all a favor?


I'm a white Irish Catholic whore and I'm not going anywhere. 

The only option you have is to learn how to deal with me.


----------



## ChrisL

Antares said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've said everything I wanted to say on this thread.  I've posted a whole bunch of links.  If you still think this is a good idea, then you are fucked.  I'm done with this thread now, unless some new information happens to come up.    Arguing with you guys is useless, as you are too partisan and too much in love with the Obamanator.
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself, you little dishrag whore!
> 
> You're trying to start a war that could bring an end to all life on planet earth.
> 
> Your rhetoric goes way beyond irresponsible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.
Click to expand...


He's having his daily temper tantrum now.    Love it!


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Do you work at being this stupid?


What's stupid about it?


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, nobody takes you seriously.  It's obvious that you are in love with Islam.  Why don't you go live in one of those craptard countries and do us all a favor?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a white Irish Catholic whore and I'm not going anywhere.
> 
> The only option you have is to learn how to deal with me.
Click to expand...


Bull.  You're an Islamopig who hates women.  Now go live with your comprades in the ME, perhaps Palestine.  Those are YOUR kind of  disgusting pig murdering animals.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, nobody takes you seriously.  It's obvious that you are in love with Islam.  Why don't you go live in one of those craptard countries and do us all a favor?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a white Irish Catholic whore and I'm not going anywhere.
> 
> The only option you have is to learn how to deal with me.
Click to expand...


You're a white Irish Catholic whore?  Interesting.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> He's having his daily temper tantrum now.    Love it!


No tantrum here.  I enjoy talking to you this way.  You deserve it.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, nobody takes you seriously.  It's obvious that you are in love with Islam.  Why don't you go live in one of those craptard countries and do us all a favor?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a white Irish Catholic whore and I'm not going anywhere.
> 
> The only option you have is to learn how to deal with me.
Click to expand...


Ok you are a White Irish Catholic whore, I concede that point.

We are just laughing at you.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Bull.  You're an Islamopig who hates women.  Now go live with your comprades in the ME, perhaps Palestine.  Those are YOUR kind of  disgusting pig murdering animals.


People like you have to make up your own reality, because you live in constant fear of everything.  The sky is always falling in your world. You're_* chicken-fuckin-little.*_


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Ok you are a White Irish Catholic whore, I concede that point.
> 
> We are just laughing at you.


That's fine with me.  I got no problem with that.

What are you wearing?


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  You're an Islamopig who hates women.  Now go live with your comprades in the ME, perhaps Palestine.  Those are YOUR kind of  disgusting pig murdering animals.
> 
> 
> 
> People like you have to make up your own reality, because you live in constant fear of everything.  The sky is always falling in your world. You're_* chicken-fuckin-little.*_
Click to expand...


Oooo, hurt me!


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's having his daily temper tantrum now.    Love it!
> 
> 
> 
> No tantrum here.  I enjoy talking to you this way.  You deserve it.
Click to expand...


Yup, because you are a woman hating Islamic, dishrag wearing homosexual.


----------



## eagle1462010

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  You're an Islamopig who hates women.  Now go live with your comprades in the ME, perhaps Palestine.  Those are YOUR kind of  disgusting pig murdering animals.
> 
> 
> 
> People like you have to make up your own reality, because you live in constant fear of everything.  The sky is always falling in your world. You're_* chicken-fuckin-little.*_
Click to expand...

Who the hell said we are in constant fear..............Some people are able to realize the threats in this world.........some are to stupid to see the forest for the trees....................

A Nuclear Iran is not in our Nations interest, nor the region, and nor the world..............

They cannot be trusted..............especially with Nukes....................and the so called agreements will not do a dang thing to stop their program if signed..................


----------



## ChrisL

occupied said:


> Came across this today, it's a CNN show on daily life in Iran. All in all they seem to be a much more vibrant, educated and free society than our "friends" the Saudis who probably had a great deal to do with 9/11. They are far more westernized and developed than I expected and the food looked fucking incredible.



Hey, and you can go right down the road and watch them hang homosexuals from cranes and murder women.  What an educated vibrant society!  Wow!!!  Lol.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## ChrisL

eagle1462010 said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  You're an Islamopig who hates women.  Now go live with your comprades in the ME, perhaps Palestine.  Those are YOUR kind of  disgusting pig murdering animals.
> 
> 
> 
> People like you have to make up your own reality, because you live in constant fear of everything.  The sky is always falling in your world. You're_* chicken-fuckin-little.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell said we are in constant fear..............Some people are able to realize the threats in this world.........some are to stupid to see the forest for the trees....................
> 
> A Nuclear Iran is not in our Nations interest, nor the region, and nor the world..............
> 
> They cannot be trusted..............especially with Nukes....................and the so called agreements will not do a dang thing to stop their program if signed..................
Click to expand...


Exactly.  Thank you for bringing some common sense into this "discussion."


----------



## occupied

ChrisL said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Came across this today, it's a CNN show on daily life in Iran. All in all they seem to be a much more vibrant, educated and free society than our "friends" the Saudis who probably had a great deal to do with 9/11. They are far more westernized and developed than I expected and the food looked fucking incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, and you can go right down the road and watch them hang homosexuals from cranes and murder women.  What an educated vibrant society!  Wow!!!  Lol.
Click to expand...

Our friends the Saudis do the same shit, why are we not talking about murdering their country in cold blood? Or any of the others around the world that do horrible things and yet have nothing to fear from us? Iran does nothing that one or more of our "allies" in the region also does regularly. The human rights rationale for war is a sham, we long ago showed the world that we go to war over only one thing, western control of local resources.


----------



## eagle1462010

ChrisL said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  You're an Islamopig who hates women.  Now go live with your comprades in the ME, perhaps Palestine.  Those are YOUR kind of  disgusting pig murdering animals.
> 
> 
> 
> People like you have to make up your own reality, because you live in constant fear of everything.  The sky is always falling in your world. You're_* chicken-fuckin-little.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell said we are in constant fear..............Some people are able to realize the threats in this world.........some are to stupid to see the forest for the trees....................
> 
> A Nuclear Iran is not in our Nations interest, nor the region, and nor the world..............
> 
> They cannot be trusted..............especially with Nukes....................and the so called agreements will not do a dang thing to stop their program if signed..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Thank you for bringing some common sense into this "discussion."
Click to expand...

If we listen to the idiots................the sky will be falling from a Radioactive cloud after a nuclear Iran hands over a bomb to their proxy terror groups......................

And then we would wipe them off the face of the earth..............Stopping their nuke program is in the end saving the Iranians themselves..........

Stop supporting terrorist scum, and trying to tell the world convert to Islam or else............

I'll take a double dose of or else please............


----------



## ChrisL

occupied said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Came across this today, it's a CNN show on daily life in Iran. All in all they seem to be a much more vibrant, educated and free society than our "friends" the Saudis who probably had a great deal to do with 9/11. They are far more westernized and developed than I expected and the food looked fucking incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, and you can go right down the road and watch them hang homosexuals from cranes and murder women.  What an educated vibrant society!  Wow!!!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our friends the Saudis do the same shit, why are we not talking about murdering their country in cold blood? Or any of the others around the world that do horrible things and yet have nothing to fear from us? Iran does nothing that one or more of our "allies" in the region also does regularly. The human rights rationale for war is a sham, we long ago showed the world that we go to war over only one thing, western control of local resources.
Click to expand...


Look, I don't like Islam period, but Iran has, in the past, declared itself our enemy, is run by crazy mullahs, has ignored and is still ignoring IAEA requests, and is on the verge of getting nukes with our president's blessings.  It's just disgusting.

And why you keep talking about war, I don't know.  I just want Obama to STOP making stupid deals.  He is a horrible president and does not have *our *best interests at heart, that much is quite obvious.


----------



## ChrisL

eagle1462010 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bull.  You're an Islamopig who hates women.  Now go live with your comprades in the ME, perhaps Palestine.  Those are YOUR kind of  disgusting pig murdering animals.
> 
> 
> 
> People like you have to make up your own reality, because you live in constant fear of everything.  The sky is always falling in your world. You're_* chicken-fuckin-little.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who the hell said we are in constant fear..............Some people are able to realize the threats in this world.........some are to stupid to see the forest for the trees....................
> 
> A Nuclear Iran is not in our Nations interest, nor the region, and nor the world..............
> 
> They cannot be trusted..............especially with Nukes....................and the so called agreements will not do a dang thing to stop their program if signed..................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  Thank you for bringing some common sense into this "discussion."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If we listen to the idiots................the sky will be falling from a Radioactive cloud after a nuclear Iran hands over a bomb to their proxy terror groups......................
> 
> And then we would wipe them off the face of the earth..............Stopping their nuke program is in the end saving the Iranians themselves..........
> 
> Stop supporting terrorist scum, and trying to tell the world convert to Islam or else............
> 
> I'll take a double dose of or else please............
Click to expand...


It's all about the PC world.  The disgusting, dishonest political correctness that seems to have infiltrated our society.  I absolutely despise it, almost as much as I despise Islam.


----------



## ChrisL

God forbid we acknowledge the TRUTH.  It might hurt someone's feelings.


----------



## occupied

ChrisL said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Came across this today, it's a CNN show on daily life in Iran. All in all they seem to be a much more vibrant, educated and free society than our "friends" the Saudis who probably had a great deal to do with 9/11. They are far more westernized and developed than I expected and the food looked fucking incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, and you can go right down the road and watch them hang homosexuals from cranes and murder women.  What an educated vibrant society!  Wow!!!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our friends the Saudis do the same shit, why are we not talking about murdering their country in cold blood? Or any of the others around the world that do horrible things and yet have nothing to fear from us? Iran does nothing that one or more of our "allies" in the region also does regularly. The human rights rationale for war is a sham, we long ago showed the world that we go to war over only one thing, western control of local resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't like Islam period, but Iran has, in the past, declared itself our enemy, is run by crazy mullahs, has ignored and is still ignoring IAEA requests, and is on the verge of getting nukes with our president's blessings.  It's just disgusting.
Click to expand...


What's disgusting is that you would rather destroy a nation than even look for a path to peace. The last two wars did not do us any favors, they did not lead to a lasting peace or good relations with the countries we bombed to rubble and cost far too much in lives and money. War with Iran cannot be anything more than a last resort. Quit hoping for something that is guaranteed to come out very badly for both sides.


----------



## ChrisL

occupied said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Came across this today, it's a CNN show on daily life in Iran. All in all they seem to be a much more vibrant, educated and free society than our "friends" the Saudis who probably had a great deal to do with 9/11. They are far more westernized and developed than I expected and the food looked fucking incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, and you can go right down the road and watch them hang homosexuals from cranes and murder women.  What an educated vibrant society!  Wow!!!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our friends the Saudis do the same shit, why are we not talking about murdering their country in cold blood? Or any of the others around the world that do horrible things and yet have nothing to fear from us? Iran does nothing that one or more of our "allies" in the region also does regularly. The human rights rationale for war is a sham, we long ago showed the world that we go to war over only one thing, western control of local resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't like Islam period, but Iran has, in the past, declared itself our enemy, is run by crazy mullahs, has ignored and is still ignoring IAEA requests, and is on the verge of getting nukes with our president's blessings.  It's just disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's disgusting is that you would rather destroy a nation than even look for a path to peace. The last two wars did not do us any favors, they did not lead to a lasting peace or good relations with the countries we bombed to rubble and cost far too much in lives and money. War with Iran cannot be anything more than a last resort. Quit hoping for something that is guaranteed to come out very badly for both sides.
Click to expand...


Again, I never said anything about war, so go bitch at someone else who may have actually said such a thing.  Your lying is what is disgusting.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> They cant lift our sanctions, passed by congress. As much as you leftist would like the U.N to run this country. Congress imposed the sanctions, they'll have to lift them.



They don't need to lift OUR sanctions, dumbass.  They just have to lift their own.  

Iran can get everything they want by trading with Germany, France, the UK, Russia and China. (Not to mention Japan and Korea and other nations who are going along with our sanctions).  For the moment, they are taking us at our word that keeping Iran from getting nukes is a desirable result. 

But at some point, if they see this is just the Zionists telling Congress what to do (something that should OUTRAGE Americans), they'll just say "Meh, fuck it. I'll take some oil and pistachios!"


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Good faith is preventing Iran from getting nukes at ALL costs.



No, that's YOUR idea of good faith.  Most of the world doesn't care if Iran gets nukes or not.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Well placed Daisy Cutters.
> 
> Problem solved.



Not really. Most of the Iranian sites are fortified and well underground.


----------



## charwin95

These 47 senators are nothing but traitors & assholes. It doesn't matter what the negotiations are you just don't do that especially to your enemy. I'm a republican but will never vote for these assholes again and I'm not alone.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10995801 





ChrisL said:


> Oh, all of my claims were backed with links.



You have never produced a poll that shows a majority of Americans  oppose  the P5+1 negotiations with Iran. You have fraudulently linked to polls that the majority of Americans oppose Iran getting a nuclear bomb. Well so do I and do died Obama and so does the P4+1. So you lied to say the majority do not support negotiations. And you are lying some more to say you posted links to back up your claim. Its all in writing here. All of your posts and links are here. You can't fool anyone who can read.


----------



## occupied

ChrisL said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Came across this today, it's a CNN show on daily life in Iran. All in all they seem to be a much more vibrant, educated and free society than our "friends" the Saudis who probably had a great deal to do with 9/11. They are far more westernized and developed than I expected and the food looked fucking incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, and you can go right down the road and watch them hang homosexuals from cranes and murder women.  What an educated vibrant society!  Wow!!!  Lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our friends the Saudis do the same shit, why are we not talking about murdering their country in cold blood? Or any of the others around the world that do horrible things and yet have nothing to fear from us? Iran does nothing that one or more of our "allies" in the region also does regularly. The human rights rationale for war is a sham, we long ago showed the world that we go to war over only one thing, western control of local resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't like Islam period, but Iran has, in the past, declared itself our enemy, is run by crazy mullahs, has ignored and is still ignoring IAEA requests, and is on the verge of getting nukes with our president's blessings.  It's just disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's disgusting is that you would rather destroy a nation than even look for a path to peace. The last two wars did not do us any favors, they did not lead to a lasting peace or good relations with the countries we bombed to rubble and cost far too much in lives and money. War with Iran cannot be anything more than a last resort. Quit hoping for something that is guaranteed to come out very badly for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I never said anything about war, so go bitch at someone else who may have actually said such a thing.  Your lying is what is disgusting.
Click to expand...

Our current policy is a path to war, it's a guarantee, do you think Iran will ever just unconditionally surrender to our demands? Not a chance in hell. They are going to defy us and they will build a bomb and if a warhawk republican ever makes it back to white house we will launch massive attacks even if it takes twenty years. Iran is the great patriotic war Republicans have prayed for since 1979 and they will have it unless something changes for the better.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> A Nuclear Iran is not in our Nations interest, nor the region, and nor the world..............



Again, you place far too much fear in something that probably won't be a big deal. 

What we've found in the last 70 years (after our wonderful democracy was the ONLY country to use them on defenseless people) is that a Nuke doesn't really get you all that much.  You can't use them without bringing equally or more horrific destruction on yourself.  Which is why all the countries that developed them AFTER we did never used them. 

So Iran gets a nuke. Who do they use it on?  Israel? They have 200 nukes.  America has thousands.


----------



## ChrisL

occupied said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, and you can go right down the road and watch them hang homosexuals from cranes and murder women.  What an educated vibrant society!  Wow!!!  Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Our friends the Saudis do the same shit, why are we not talking about murdering their country in cold blood? Or any of the others around the world that do horrible things and yet have nothing to fear from us? Iran does nothing that one or more of our "allies" in the region also does regularly. The human rights rationale for war is a sham, we long ago showed the world that we go to war over only one thing, western control of local resources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look, I don't like Islam period, but Iran has, in the past, declared itself our enemy, is run by crazy mullahs, has ignored and is still ignoring IAEA requests, and is on the verge of getting nukes with our president's blessings.  It's just disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's disgusting is that you would rather destroy a nation than even look for a path to peace. The last two wars did not do us any favors, they did not lead to a lasting peace or good relations with the countries we bombed to rubble and cost far too much in lives and money. War with Iran cannot be anything more than a last resort. Quit hoping for something that is guaranteed to come out very badly for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I never said anything about war, so go bitch at someone else who may have actually said such a thing.  Your lying is what is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our current policy is a path to war, it's a guarantee, do you think Iran will ever just unconditionally surrender to our demands? Not a chance in hell. They are going to defy us and they will build a bomb and if a warhawk republican ever makes it back to white house we will launch massive attacks even if it takes twenty years. Iran is the great patriotic war Republicans have prayed for since 1979 and they will have it unless something changes for the better.
Click to expand...


We can force them to with sanctions.  Mr. Obama's plan is to lift the tough sanctions we currently have on Iran, which does what?  Helps them get the materials they need to make a bomb.  That is all there is too it.  Just wait until the Saudis and others get bombs.  I already posted a link to that data.  They are looking to get one because even THEY do not trust the Iranians.  You people need to wake up out of your PC daze!


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> If we listen to the idiots................the sky will be falling from a Radioactive cloud after a nuclear Iran hands over a bomb to their proxy terror groups.



But why would they do that? Why spend billions of dollars to make a weapon like that, and then hand it over to a "proxy" group run by who knows?   That doesn't make any sense. 

Oh, wait, we are going to get Eagle's "But they're MUSLIMS---- and they're CRAZY" speech.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Nuclear Iran is not in our Nations interest, nor the region, and nor the world..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you place far too much fear in something that probably won't be a big deal.
> 
> What we've found in the last 70 years (after our wonderful democracy was the ONLY country to use them on defenseless people) is that a Nuke doesn't really get you all that much.  You can't use them without bringing equally or more horrific destruction on yourself.  Which is why all the countries that developed them AFTER we did never used them.
> 
> So Iran gets a nuke. Who do they use it on?  Israel? They have 200 nukes.  America has thousands.
Click to expand...


They will at LEAST be more of a thorn in the side of the rest of the world than they already are, at LEAST, and that is the best case scenario.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10995801
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, all of my claims were backed with links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never produced a poll that shows a majority of Americans  oppose  the P5+1 negotiations with Iran. You have fraudulently linked to polls that the majority of Americans oppose Iran getting a nuclear bomb. Well so do I and do died Obama and so does the P4+1. So you lied to say the majority do not support negotiations. And you are lying some more to say you posted links to back up your claim. Its all in writing here. All of your posts and links are here. You can't fool anyone who can read.
Click to expand...


Oh shut the hell up, you Obama arse kisser.  I've heard just about enough out of your dumb pie hole to last a lifetime.  I've posted plenty of links which back up ALL of my claims.  Anyone can check that by going to my profile page or using the search function, and everyone will KNOW who the liar is.  It's you.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10995801
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, all of my claims were backed with links.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have never produced a poll that shows a majority of Americans  oppose  the P5+1 negotiations with Iran. You have fraudulently linked to polls that the majority of Americans oppose Iran getting a nuclear bomb. Well so do I and do died Obama and so does the P4+1. So you lied to say the majority do not support negotiations. And you are lying some more to say you posted links to back up your claim. Its all in writing here. All of your posts and links are here. You can't fool anyone who can read.
Click to expand...


And you STILL can't quote correctly, can you?  Lol.  You're weird.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good faith is preventing Iran from getting nukes at ALL costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's YOUR idea of good faith.  Most of the world doesn't care if Iran gets nukes or not.
Click to expand...


That's a lie.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we listen to the idiots................the sky will be falling from a Radioactive cloud after a nuclear Iran hands over a bomb to their proxy terror groups.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But why would they do that? Why spend billions of dollars to make a weapon like that, and then hand it over to a "proxy" group run by who knows?   That doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Oh, wait, we are going to get Eagle's "But they're MUSLIMS---- and they're CRAZY" speech.
Click to expand...


They ARE crazy, you idiot.  I'm sorry for the all the insults, but I can't help myself.  The stupidity is just ASTOUNDING!  

America and Iran The best of bad options The Economist

THE March 24th deadline for an agreement with Iran may be looming, but the parties to the talks have kept impressively quiet about the details being hammered out this week in Montreux, Switzerland. Despite speculation that a deal is imminent, significant gaps still remain which could yet scupper one.

Iran, unrealistically, is demanding the immediate removal of all sanctions. Barack Obama, America’s president, can suspend most of America’s, but only Congress can remove sanctions that it has legislated. The rapturous applause for the speech Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, gave to Congress on March 3rd suggests that suspension is the best the Iranians can get from America for the foreseeable future. The European Union and the United Nations Security Council could, however, remove their sanctions more permanently.

Iran also wants to be able to continue to develop more advanced centrifuges, which would allow the rapid ramp-up of uranium enrichment (and thus speed the path to a bomb) once the agreed restrictions fall away. The centrifuges that Iran hopes eventually to deploy spin about six times faster than the ones installed now, which they say they will need to produce low-enriched uranium (LEU) on the industrial scale needed to fuel commercial reactors.

Iran has said it will accept the International Atomic Energy Authority’s (IAEA) Additional Protocol, which involves more intrusive inspections of nuclear facilities than usual. But Iran has not yet agreed to other inspections, which given its history of cheating is deemed a necessary requirement by the West. A final key issue yet to be resolved is that Iran must come clean about past weapons-programme activities. It has thus far steadily refused to do so because it still insists, no matter how implausibly, that there never were any.


----------



## ChrisL

^^^

I just love how all the liberal media thinks this is a GOOD idea.  The world has gone insane, I swear.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Antares said:


> Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.



What "Islam" wants it to happen? Egypt is 80 million - they don't want it to happen? Why is Iran fighting Daesh terrorist scum in Iraq and Syria? 

Do you think Saudis want it to happen. You are very deranged when it comes to Islam - what Bush called the religion of peace.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good faith is preventing Iran from getting nukes at ALL costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's YOUR idea of good faith.  Most of the world doesn't care if Iran gets nukes or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...


who do you think really cares that much, other than the Zionshits?


----------



## occupied

ChrisL said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our friends the Saudis do the same shit, why are we not talking about murdering their country in cold blood? Or any of the others around the world that do horrible things and yet have nothing to fear from us? Iran does nothing that one or more of our "allies" in the region also does regularly. The human rights rationale for war is a sham, we long ago showed the world that we go to war over only one thing, western control of local resources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I don't like Islam period, but Iran has, in the past, declared itself our enemy, is run by crazy mullahs, has ignored and is still ignoring IAEA requests, and is on the verge of getting nukes with our president's blessings.  It's just disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's disgusting is that you would rather destroy a nation than even look for a path to peace. The last two wars did not do us any favors, they did not lead to a lasting peace or good relations with the countries we bombed to rubble and cost far too much in lives and money. War with Iran cannot be anything more than a last resort. Quit hoping for something that is guaranteed to come out very badly for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I never said anything about war, so go bitch at someone else who may have actually said such a thing.  Your lying is what is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our current policy is a path to war, it's a guarantee, do you think Iran will ever just unconditionally surrender to our demands? Not a chance in hell. They are going to defy us and they will build a bomb and if a warhawk republican ever makes it back to white house we will launch massive attacks even if it takes twenty years. Iran is the great patriotic war Republicans have prayed for since 1979 and they will have it unless something changes for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can force them to with sanctions.  Mr. Obama's plan is to lift the tough sanctions we currently have on Iran, which does what?  Helps them get the materials they need to make a bomb.  That is all there is too it.  Just wait until the Saudis and others get bombs.  I already posted a link to that data.  They are looking to get one because even THEY do not trust the Iranians.  You people need to wake up out of your PC daze!
Click to expand...

Everything you "know" about Iran comes from the same kind of people who told us Saddam was an imminent threat to Israel and Europe with his advanced biological and "nucular" programs. Even if you say you do not want a war the people spreading all the scary stories do, they want it badly.  There are a lot of American and Israeli conservatives who want to murder Iran in cold blood without any real provocation, the rest of the world just wants to get down to business and get on with life.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> They ARE crazy, you idiot. I'm sorry for the all the insults, but I can't help myself. The stupidity is just ASTOUNDING!
> 
> America and Iran The best of bad options The Economist



What does that have to do with anything I just said?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good faith is preventing Iran from getting nukes at ALL costs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's YOUR idea of good faith.  Most of the world doesn't care if Iran gets nukes or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who do you think really cares that much, other than the Zionshits?
Click to expand...


Every other country in the ME.  Most people in the world with a brain wouldn't trust Iran.  You MUST be kidding.  Iran has done absolutely nothing to earn any trust.  You ever hear the saying . . . fool me once, shame on you . . . fool me twice, shame on me.  Only a complete retard would trust Iran.


----------



## ChrisL

occupied said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I don't like Islam period, but Iran has, in the past, declared itself our enemy, is run by crazy mullahs, has ignored and is still ignoring IAEA requests, and is on the verge of getting nukes with our president's blessings.  It's just disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's disgusting is that you would rather destroy a nation than even look for a path to peace. The last two wars did not do us any favors, they did not lead to a lasting peace or good relations with the countries we bombed to rubble and cost far too much in lives and money. War with Iran cannot be anything more than a last resort. Quit hoping for something that is guaranteed to come out very badly for both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, I never said anything about war, so go bitch at someone else who may have actually said such a thing.  Your lying is what is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our current policy is a path to war, it's a guarantee, do you think Iran will ever just unconditionally surrender to our demands? Not a chance in hell. They are going to defy us and they will build a bomb and if a warhawk republican ever makes it back to white house we will launch massive attacks even if it takes twenty years. Iran is the great patriotic war Republicans have prayed for since 1979 and they will have it unless something changes for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can force them to with sanctions.  Mr. Obama's plan is to lift the tough sanctions we currently have on Iran, which does what?  Helps them get the materials they need to make a bomb.  That is all there is too it.  Just wait until the Saudis and others get bombs.  I already posted a link to that data.  They are looking to get one because even THEY do not trust the Iranians.  You people need to wake up out of your PC daze!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you "know" about Iran comes from the same kind of people who told us Saddam was an imminent threat to Israel and Europe with his advanced biological and "nucular" programs. Even if you say you do not want a war the people spreading all the scary stories do, they want it badly.  There are a lot of American and Israeli conservatives who want to murder Iran in cold blood without any real provocation, the rest of the world just wants to get down to business and get on with life.
Click to expand...


Oh I know, Saddam was a harmless man who actually DID use chemical weapons before, is guilty of murdering up to a few MILLION people, scammed his own people with the Oil for Food Program.  WTH is WRONG with you people?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> They ARE crazy, you idiot. I'm sorry for the all the insults, but I can't help myself. The stupidity is just ASTOUNDING!
> 
> America and Iran The best of bad options The Economist



Your link goes nowhere.  Nearly six of ten Republicans support negotiations. 

What's stupid is calling everone else stupid for not having your obsession.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ARE crazy, you idiot. I'm sorry for the all the insults, but I can't help myself. The stupidity is just ASTOUNDING!
> 
> America and Iran The best of bad options The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does that have to do with anything I just said?
Click to expand...


Just trying to show how idiotic it would be to trust Iran to keep it's word for anything.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They ARE crazy, you idiot. I'm sorry for the all the insults, but I can't help myself. The stupidity is just ASTOUNDING!
> 
> America and Iran The best of bad options The Economist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your link goes nowhere.  Nearly six of ten Republicans support negotiations.
> 
> What's stupid is calling everone else stupid for not having your obsession.
Click to expand...


Sorry, but you ARE stupid.  That's just a fact.  Anyone who would think that Iran has "changed" and is suddenly "responsible" after all of the crap that they have pulled are STILL pulling (as outlined in a link I provided, statements by the Chief of the IAEA) is a complete and utter moron.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Every other country in the ME. Most people in the world with a brain wouldn't trust Iran. You MUST be kidding. Iran has done absolutely nothing to earn any trust. You ever hear the saying . . . fool me once, shame on you . . . fool me twice, shame on me. Only a complete retard would trust Iran.



What has Iran done, exactly?  I mean, seriously, what his this GREAT OFFENSE Iran has committed, exactly?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Just trying to show how idiotic it would be to trust Iran to keep it's word for anything.



again, compared to who?  What make's Iran government any less trustable than anyone elses?


----------



## ChrisL

Stupid, stupid, stupid.    Bitch slaps for all you all.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just trying to show how idiotic it would be to trust Iran to keep it's word for anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, compared to who?  What make's Iran government any less trustable than anyone elses?
Click to expand...


See, I told you that you were stupid.  You are either stupid or retarded.  Which one?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every other country in the ME. Most people in the world with a brain wouldn't trust Iran. You MUST be kidding. Iran has done absolutely nothing to earn any trust. You ever hear the saying . . . fool me once, shame on you . . . fool me twice, shame on me. Only a complete retard would trust Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Iran done, exactly?  I mean, seriously, what his this GREAT OFFENSE Iran has committed, exactly?
Click to expand...


Apparently you don't know much about anything, huh?


----------



## JoeB131

So, chris, can you answer the question.  

WHAT HORRIBLE THING HAS IRAN DONE? 

Did they launch a major war over weapons that didn't exist?  You know, like we did? 

I mean, if you are going to argue, 'We absolutely cannot trust you", you really need to give me an example of how they broke their word. 

Thanks.


----------



## jasonnfree

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every other country in the ME. Most people in the world with a brain wouldn't trust Iran. You MUST be kidding. Iran has done absolutely nothing to earn any trust. You ever hear the saying . . . fool me once, shame on you . . . fool me twice, shame on me. Only a complete retard would trust Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What has Iran done, exactly?  I mean, seriously, what his this GREAT OFFENSE Iran has committed, exactly?
Click to expand...


Iran tried to sink one of our Navy ships, the USS Liberty... Oh, never mind, that was Israel.    15 of the 9-11 hijackers were Iranians... Oh, never mind, those hijackers were Saudis, bush cheney's good buddies.    They shot down one of our planes and kept the crew for several weeks, and kept the plane for good.... Oh wait, those were the Red chinese who we sent all the American jobs and factories to.  Well, why then are we so worried about Iran then?


----------



## natstew

ChrisL said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's disgusting is that you would rather destroy a nation than even look for a path to peace. The last two wars did not do us any favors, they did not lead to a lasting peace or good relations with the countries we bombed to rubble and cost far too much in lives and money. War with Iran cannot be anything more than a last resort. Quit hoping for something that is guaranteed to come out very badly for both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I never said anything about war, so go bitch at someone else who may have actually said such a thing.  Your lying is what is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our current policy is a path to war, it's a guarantee, do you think Iran will ever just unconditionally surrender to our demands? Not a chance in hell. They are going to defy us and they will build a bomb and if a warhawk republican ever makes it back to white house we will launch massive attacks even if it takes twenty years. Iran is the great patriotic war Republicans have prayed for since 1979 and they will have it unless something changes for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can force them to with sanctions.  Mr. Obama's plan is to lift the tough sanctions we currently have on Iran, which does what?  Helps them get the materials they need to make a bomb.  That is all there is too it.  Just wait until the Saudis and others get bombs.  I already posted a link to that data.  They are looking to get one because even THEY do not trust the Iranians.  You people need to wake up out of your PC daze!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you "know" about Iran comes from the same kind of people who told us Saddam was an imminent threat to Israel and Europe with his advanced biological and "nucular" programs. Even if you say you do not want a war the people spreading all the scary stories do, they want it badly.  There are a lot of American and Israeli conservatives who want to murder Iran in cold blood without any real provocation, the rest of the world just wants to get down to business and get on with life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know, Saddam was a harmless man who actually DID use chemical weapons before, is guilty of murdering up to a few MILLION people, scammed his own people with the Oil for Food Program.  WTH is WRONG with you people?
Click to expand...


And he was paying 10,000.00 dollars tpo parents who strapped bombs on their 5 and 6 year old children and blowing them up in Jewish restaurants and schools.


----------



## occupied

ChrisL said:


> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> occupied said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's disgusting is that you would rather destroy a nation than even look for a path to peace. The last two wars did not do us any favors, they did not lead to a lasting peace or good relations with the countries we bombed to rubble and cost far too much in lives and money. War with Iran cannot be anything more than a last resort. Quit hoping for something that is guaranteed to come out very badly for both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I never said anything about war, so go bitch at someone else who may have actually said such a thing.  Your lying is what is disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our current policy is a path to war, it's a guarantee, do you think Iran will ever just unconditionally surrender to our demands? Not a chance in hell. They are going to defy us and they will build a bomb and if a warhawk republican ever makes it back to white house we will launch massive attacks even if it takes twenty years. Iran is the great patriotic war Republicans have prayed for since 1979 and they will have it unless something changes for the better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can force them to with sanctions.  Mr. Obama's plan is to lift the tough sanctions we currently have on Iran, which does what?  Helps them get the materials they need to make a bomb.  That is all there is too it.  Just wait until the Saudis and others get bombs.  I already posted a link to that data.  They are looking to get one because even THEY do not trust the Iranians.  You people need to wake up out of your PC daze!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything you "know" about Iran comes from the same kind of people who told us Saddam was an imminent threat to Israel and Europe with his advanced biological and "nucular" programs. Even if you say you do not want a war the people spreading all the scary stories do, they want it badly.  There are a lot of American and Israeli conservatives who want to murder Iran in cold blood without any real provocation, the rest of the world just wants to get down to business and get on with life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I know, Saddam was a harmless man who actually DID use chemical weapons before, is guilty of murdering up to a few MILLION people, scammed his own people with the Oil for Food Program.  WTH is WRONG with you people?
Click to expand...

Oh yeah things are so much better now. Just like the rest of the warhawks you are not devoting a second of thought to the aftermath. I think you are lying and do want a war if you are willing to make the case at this late date that anything is better because we invaded Iraq. If you will buy that shit you will buy the same shit when again the case is made to unilaterally attack Iran just because they do not like us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> They ARE crazy, you idiot. I'm sorry for the all the insults, but I can't help myself. The stupidity is just ASTOUNDING!
> 
> America and Iran The best of bad options The Economist



Your link goes nowhere.  Nearly six of ten Republicans support negotiations.

What's stupid is calling everone else stupid for not having your obsession.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10996298 





ChrisL said:


> Oh I know, Saddam was a harmless man who actually DID use chemical weapons before, is guilty of murdering up to a few MILLION people, scammed his own people with the Oil for Food Program.



No one says Saddam was harmless. Chalk up another lie by you. Why did Bush use WMD as the reason there had to be am invasion?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10996310 





ChrisL said:


> Anyone who would think that Iran has "changed" and is suddenly "responsible" after all of the crap that they have pulled are STILL pulling (as outlined in a link I provided, statements by the Chief of the IAEA)



Do you think the Chief of the IAEA supports your bigoted hatred and your opposition to completing the negotiations toward a final long term deal? 

I have not argued that Iran is suddenly responsible. Count another lie on your record. We may find out if they are responsible after a deal. If they are not bomb their facilities. That is the surest way tio stop a bomb. Not cater to Iran's hardliners like you are doing since you both want to subvert a deal. You have the most in common with Iraq's hardliners at this point in time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10970116


ChrisL said:


>



NF 10970132 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Are gun rights for peaceful law abiding citizens only?



ChrL 10970140 





ChrisL said:


> Ahhh, yes. Felons lose their rights. Are you even FROM this country? WTF?



NF 10970173 





NotfooledbyW said:


> When do felons become felons? Before or after they violate the law?
> 
> Is the P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?



Why didn't you answer the last two questions?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> So, chris, can you answer the question.
> 
> WHAT HORRIBLE THING HAS IRAN DONE?
> 
> Did they launch a major war over weapons that didn't exist?  You know, like we did?
> 
> I mean, if you are going to argue, 'We absolutely cannot trust you", you really need to give me an example of how they broke their word.
> 
> Thanks.



The support and aid worldwide terrorism and attack other countries by proxy using terrorists.  They stone and kill women.  They hang homosexuals.  They are run by religious extremists.  They lie, cheat and deceive.  Their beliefs are that they want to bring the world into the dark ages.  That's just a few things.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10996310
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who would think that Iran has "changed" and is suddenly "responsible" after all of the crap that they have pulled are STILL pulling (as outlined in a link I provided, statements by the Chief of the IAEA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the Chief of the IAEA supports your bigoted hatred and your opposition to completing the negotiations toward a final long term deal?
> 
> I have not argued that Iran is suddenly responsible. Count another lie on your record. We may find out if they are responsible after a deal. If they are not bomb their facilities. That is the surest way tio stop a bomb. Not cater to Iran's hardliners like you are doing since you both want to subvert a deal. You have the most in common with Iraq's hardliners at this point in time.
Click to expand...


The chief of the IAEA says he is not sure if these "negotiations" are even going to be possible because Iran is STILL not fully cooperating.  Now what?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10970116
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF 10970132
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are gun rights for peaceful law abiding citizens only?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChrL 10970140
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh, yes. Felons lose their rights. Are you even FROM this country? WTF?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NF 10970173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do felons become felons? Before or after they violate the law?
> 
> Is the P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why didn't you answer the last two questions?
Click to expand...


Because your questions are idiotic, just like you, and I don't like you much . . . actually not at all.  Anyone who is supportive of Islam and the Iranian regime is a loser, IMO.  You can go screw off.


----------



## ChrisL

Just to make things clear, I despise Islam and I despise Iran, and I despise all of you who are supporting this deal.  You all suck balls.


----------



## occupied

ChrisL said:


> Just to make things clear, I despise Islam and I despise Iran, and I despise all of you who are supporting this deal.  You all suck balls.


I'm not the one wanting to feed another trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to the woodchipper in order to enrich the MIC.


----------



## ChrisL

occupied said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just to make things clear, I despise Islam and I despise Iran, and I despise all of you who are supporting this deal.  You all suck balls.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one wanting to feed another trillion dollars and thousands of American lives to the woodchipper in order to enrich the MIC.
Click to expand...


Neither do I.  Why you keep insisting that I want a war, I don't know.  Probably because you are a nutty liberal who has no other argument.  This is what liberals do.  They are dishonest wimps.  

A great analogy for the liberal is the kid in school who had to pass out candies and cookies and give up his/her lunch money just to make friends, and this carries over into adulthood.  Lol.    It makes SO much sense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 10996635 





ChrisL said:


> Because your questions are idiotic,



What is idiotic about the questionIntake you were enforcing the idea that Obama favors nuclear rights for Iran, but no gun rights for Americans.

Since you posted such a sickening dishonest cartoon we need to know how you have concluded that it represents something based on facts. 

NF 10970173 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Is the e P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?



So why not tell us your opinion regarding the above question? Perhaps you think the P5's are not able to make international law.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10996635
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your questions are idiotic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is idiotic about the questionIntake you were enforcing the idea that Obama favors nuclear rights for Iran, but no gun rights for Americans.
> 
> Since you posted such a sickening dishonest cartoon we need to know how you have concluded that it represents something based on facts.
> 
> NF 10970173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the e P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why not tell us your opinion regarding the above question? Perhaps you think the P5's are not able to make international law.
Click to expand...


Hey, the truth hurts, huh?  You liberals can't handle the truth, that's why you believe in political correctness.  Lol.  

Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal - Burgess Everett - POLITICO

Even as the White House ramps up pressure on Congress to stay out of its negotiations with Iran on a nuclear agreement, Republicans are on the brink of veto-proof majorities for legislation that could undercut any deal.

And that support has held up even after the uproar last week over the GOP’s letter to Iranian leaders warning against an agreement.

Story Continued Below


Though several Democratic senators told POLITICO they were offended by the missive authored by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), none of them said it would cause them to drop their support for bills to impose new sanctions on Iran or give Congress review power over a nuclear deal.

That presents another complication for the administration ahead of a rough deadline of March 24 to reach a nuclear agreement with the country.



Read more: Democrats prepared to buck White House on Iran nuclear deal - Burgess Everett - POLITICO


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10991928
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to my links, anything Obama does unilaterally is not beholden to the next administration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unilaterally in what sense? P5+1 is a multilateral negotiation going on since 2006. The next Administration can't undue (in a practical and moral sense) much if a deal is made and Iran complies and does not ever attempt to breakout from peaceful nuclear power to trying to build a bomb.  They will be stopped if a violation occurs and that includes any member state having the right to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.
> 
> Nothing changes in that regard except outsiders will have better intelligence if military strikes should be needed.
> 
> So "beholden" is a farcical concept in this whole scenario specifically if Iran complies for the next 15 years with their agreement with the west and China and Russia.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the US Constitution compells the Senate of the United States to comply with P5+1 agreements. obama, negotiating any treaty requires Senate ratification before said treaty is binding.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10996635
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your questions are idiotic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is idiotic about the questionIntake you were enforcing the idea that Obama favors nuclear rights for Iran, but no gun rights for Americans.
> 
> Since you posted such a sickening dishonest cartoon we need to know how you have concluded that it represents something based on facts.
> 
> NF 10970173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the e P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why not tell us your opinion regarding the above question? Perhaps you think the P5's are not able to make international law.
Click to expand...

They can make no law that the US must follow without 66 Senators.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 10996635
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because your questions are idiotic,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is idiotic about the questionIntake you were enforcing the idea that Obama favors nuclear rights for Iran, but no gun rights for Americans.
> 
> Since you posted such a sickening dishonest cartoon we need to know how you have concluded that it represents something based on facts.
> 
> NF 10970173
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the e P5+1 deal if enacted going to become a part of international law?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So why not tell us your opinion regarding the above question? Perhaps you think the P5's are not able to make international law.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> The support and aid worldwide terrorism and attack other countries by proxy using terrorists.



Okay. so do the Pakistanis. So do the Russians.  So do the North Koreans.  



ChrisL said:


> They stone and kill women. They hang homosexuals.



Not really that many, and usually for things those people KNEW were crimes before they did them. again, Iran only executed 700 or so people in 2014.  While that's bad and all, most of them did things you should be hung for. 



ChrisL said:


> They are run by religious extremists.



Yeah, as opposed to an American President who invaded Iraq because God told him to. 



ChrisL said:


> They lie, cheat and deceive.



and again, I'm waiting for an example. 



ChrisL said:


> Their beliefs are that they want to bring the world into the dark ages. That's just a few things.



So other than a lot of emoting, did you actually have an example of Iran breaking a treaty or otherwise not living up to agreements they've made?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Just to make things clear, I despise Islam and I despise Iran, and I despise all of you who are supporting this deal. You all suck balls.



I don't necessarily support this deal. But frankly, you emoting because you don't like their belief in Invisible Sky Fairies is not a sound rational against this agreement.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Nothing in the US Constitution compells the Senate of the United States to comply with P5+1 agreements. obama, negotiating any treaty requires Senate ratification before said treaty is binding.



actually, most of the sanctions we have against Iran are executive orders Obama can repeal. More to the point, if we don't get an agreement, the Russians and Chinese will just cut their own deals with Iran. 



Ernie S. said:


> There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is.



Actually, there is. Most of them being treaties we've ALREADY AGREED TO.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ernie S. said:


> There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is



In yourvmind a treaty or executive agreement is not considered a part of international law. Is that correct?

This is not going to be a treaty:



> .
> *Politically-Binding? Legally-Binding? Or Both?*
> 
> One misconception about the nature of the P5+1 agreement with Iran is whether and how it binds the two sides to follow through with their commitments and who must endorse it.
> 
> From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.
> 
> Unlike a treaty, which requires the advice and consent of two thirds of the U.S. Senate and is legally binding, the executive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran will not require congressional advice and consent, though Congress will have to, at the appropriate stage, take legislative action to lift certain nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated in testimony before a March 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the Iran nuclear deal would be a "nonbinding" executive agreement among the parties, which include the five permanent members of the Security Council.
> 
> But as Richard Nephew, former deputy coordinator of sanctions policy at the State Department told _The Washington Post_, "At the end of the day, it's still politically binding," he said. "Commitments are made. What's the real consequence to Iran? If it were a treaty or legally binding and they violate it, that has significance. But the bigger impact is sanctions will be reimposed. If we don't fulfill our part, Iran's nuclear program will expand. That's still a consequence, just more practical than legal."
> 
> If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.
> 
> However, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in an email statement to reporters on March 12 that "any new resolution would not take U.S. commitments under the deal--particularly with respect to sanctions relief--and make them legally binding. We have been and will continue to be extremely careful to avoid any such provisions in future [UN Security Council resolutions]."
> 
> The 2013 deal reached by the United States and Russia to remove and destroy chemical weapons from Syria followed a similar pattern--an executive agreement followed by a UN Security Council resolution endorsing and mandating the implementation of the arrangement.
> 
> A congressionally-mandated requirement for delaying the implementation of the agreement pending a congressional review and an "up-or-down" vote, as called for by the Corker-Menendez legislation (S. 615), or a requirement that Iran meet further commitments before sanctions are relieved (which is also an element of that bill), would put the United States at odds with its obligations under the P5+1 and Iran deal.
> 
> For more on discussion, see Tyler Cullis's oped in _The New York Times,_ "Ford and Helsinki, Obama and Iran" and Jack Goldsmith's blog, "How a U.N. Security Council Resolution Transforms a Non-Binding Agreement with Iran into a Binding Obligation Under International Law."



P5 1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert March 13 Arms Control Association


----------



## ChrisL

Hmm.  Does anyone wonder WHY Obama decided to make this deal anyways during his last term?  Last lame duck attempt to make a name for himself?  



JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the US Constitution compells the Senate of the United States to comply with P5+1 agreements. obama, negotiating any treaty requires Senate ratification before said treaty is binding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, most of the sanctions we have against Iran are executive orders Obama can repeal. More to the point, if we don't get an agreement, the Russians and Chinese will just cut their own deals with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is. Most of them being treaties we've ALREADY AGREED TO.
Click to expand...


No they are not.  Those sanctions were set up with the UN and GWB.  Obama is going to have a difficult time.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In yourvmind a treaty or executive agreement is not considered a part of international law. Is that correct?
> 
> This is not going to be a treaty:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Politically-Binding? Legally-Binding? Or Both?*
> 
> One misconception about the nature of the P5+1 agreement with Iran is whether and how it binds the two sides to follow through with their commitments and who must endorse it.
> 
> From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.
> 
> Unlike a treaty, which requires the advice and consent of two thirds of the U.S. Senate and is legally binding, the executive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran will not require congressional advice and consent, though Congress will have to, at the appropriate stage, take legislative action to lift certain nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated in testimony before a March 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the Iran nuclear deal would be a "nonbinding" executive agreement among the parties, which include the five permanent members of the Security Council.
> 
> But as Richard Nephew, former deputy coordinator of sanctions policy at the State Department told _The Washington Post_, "At the end of the day, it's still politically binding," he said. "Commitments are made. What's the real consequence to Iran? If it were a treaty or legally binding and they violate it, that has significance. But the bigger impact is sanctions will be reimposed. If we don't fulfill our part, Iran's nuclear program will expand. That's still a consequence, just more practical than legal."
> 
> If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.
> 
> However, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in an email statement to reporters on March 12 that "any new resolution would not take U.S. commitments under the deal--particularly with respect to sanctions relief--and make them legally binding. We have been and will continue to be extremely careful to avoid any such provisions in future [UN Security Council resolutions]."
> 
> The 2013 deal reached by the United States and Russia to remove and destroy chemical weapons from Syria followed a similar pattern--an executive agreement followed by a UN Security Council resolution endorsing and mandating the implementation of the arrangement.
> 
> A congressionally-mandated requirement for delaying the implementation of the agreement pending a congressional review and an "up-or-down" vote, as called for by the Corker-Menendez legislation (S. 615), or a requirement that Iran meet further commitments before sanctions are relieved (which is also an element of that bill), would put the United States at odds with its obligations under the P5+1 and Iran deal.
> 
> For more on discussion, see Tyler Cullis's oped in _The New York Times,_ "Ford and Helsinki, Obama and Iran" and Jack Goldsmith's blog, "How a U.N. Security Council Resolution Transforms a Non-Binding Agreement with Iran into a Binding Obligation Under International Law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P5 1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert March 13 Arms Control Association
Click to expand...


You link disagrees with your statement.  It says right in your link that they will have to go through congress and the UN in order to make the agreement binding . . . IOW, if they fail to do this, the next administration does not have to abide by it because it would be an executive agreement and NOT a treaty.  Obama cannot make a treaty with anyone without going through congress.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing in the US Constitution compells the Senate of the United States to comply with P5+1 agreements. obama, negotiating any treaty requires Senate ratification before said treaty is binding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually, most of the sanctions we have against Iran are executive orders Obama can repeal. More to the point, if we don't get an agreement, the Russians and Chinese will just cut their own deals with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, there is. Most of them being treaties we've ALREADY AGREED TO.
Click to expand...

Not laws, treaties. There is no body that enforces laws for the planet, thus no international law.
The sanctions on Iran are US law, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as international law. There are treaties..... but this is not a treaty until the Senate says it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In yourvmind a treaty or executive agreement is not considered a part of international law. Is that correct?
> 
> This is not going to be a treaty:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> *Politically-Binding? Legally-Binding? Or Both?*
> 
> One misconception about the nature of the P5+1 agreement with Iran is whether and how it binds the two sides to follow through with their commitments and who must endorse it.
> 
> From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.
> 
> Unlike a treaty, which requires the advice and consent of two thirds of the U.S. Senate and is legally binding, the executive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran will not require congressional advice and consent, though Congress will have to, at the appropriate stage, take legislative action to lift certain nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement.
> 
> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry reiterated in testimony before a March 11 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that the Iran nuclear deal would be a "nonbinding" executive agreement among the parties, which include the five permanent members of the Security Council.
> 
> But as Richard Nephew, former deputy coordinator of sanctions policy at the State Department told _The Washington Post_, "At the end of the day, it's still politically binding," he said. "Commitments are made. What's the real consequence to Iran? If it were a treaty or legally binding and they violate it, that has significance. But the bigger impact is sanctions will be reimposed. If we don't fulfill our part, Iran's nuclear program will expand. That's still a consequence, just more practical than legal."
> 
> If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.
> 
> However, Bernadette Meehan, spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in an email statement to reporters on March 12 that "any new resolution would not take U.S. commitments under the deal--particularly with respect to sanctions relief--and make them legally binding. We have been and will continue to be extremely careful to avoid any such provisions in future [UN Security Council resolutions]."
> 
> The 2013 deal reached by the United States and Russia to remove and destroy chemical weapons from Syria followed a similar pattern--an executive agreement followed by a UN Security Council resolution endorsing and mandating the implementation of the arrangement.
> 
> A congressionally-mandated requirement for delaying the implementation of the agreement pending a congressional review and an "up-or-down" vote, as called for by the Corker-Menendez legislation (S. 615), or a requirement that Iran meet further commitments before sanctions are relieved (which is also an element of that bill), would put the United States at odds with its obligations under the P5+1 and Iran deal.
> 
> For more on discussion, see Tyler Cullis's oped in _The New York Times,_ "Ford and Helsinki, Obama and Iran" and Jack Goldsmith's blog, "How a U.N. Security Council Resolution Transforms a Non-Binding Agreement with Iran into a Binding Obligation Under International Law."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> P5 1 and Iran Nuclear Talks Alert March 13 Arms Control Association
Click to expand...

Show me how P5+1 can enforce this "executive agreement".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ernie S. said:


> Show me how P5+1 can enforce this "executive agreement".



Bombs.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ernie S. said:


> Not laws, treaties. There is no body that enforces laws for the planet, thus no international law.



Sanctions and trade restrictions are enforcement of international law.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

_*"61 percent of participants broke in favor of making a deal allowing limited enrichment"*_


More Proof that ChrisL is wrong that a majority of Americans *do not* support the P5+1 negotiations and potential deal with Iran.




> .   The survey — fielded by GfK among a nationally representative panel of 710 Americans, with a 4 point margin of error — showed that large majorities of respondents found arguments convincing both for and against making a deal, including the kind of arguments made by Netanyahu. But in the end, *61 percent of participants broke in favor of making a deal allowing limited enrichment, *provided that there are intrusive inspections, rather than ramping up sanctions in an effort to get Iran to give up all enrichment.




What Americans really think about an Iran deal Brookings Institution


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look sissy boy the war is going to happen because Islam wants it to happen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "Islam" wants it to happen? Egypt is 80 million - they don't want it to happen? Why is Iran fighting Daesh terrorist scum in Iraq and Syria?
> 
> Do you think Saudis want it to happen. You are very deranged when it comes to Islam - what Bush called the religion of peace.
Click to expand...


Nope I understand fully what RADICAL Islam wants, you have your head in the sand.


----------



## Vigilante

The TRUTH be known......


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> You link disagrees with your statement. It says right in your link that they will have to go through congress and the UN in order to make the agreement binding . . . IOW, if they fail to do this, the next administration does not have to abide by it because it would be an executive agreement and NOT a treaty.




You are truly an uneducated and obviously illiterate partisan hack.

From my link:



> .  From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.




And this:




> .  If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.




A future president cannot undue a UNSC Resolution that had passed. 

The point I've made is that if Iran complies for the next ten to fifteen years there will be no political will to subvert the deal unilaterally by a US President. If Iran does not comply bomb them. So what's your bitching sll about?


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You link disagrees with your statement. It says right in your link that they will have to go through congress and the UN in order to make the agreement binding . . . IOW, if they fail to do this, the next administration does not have to abide by it because it would be an executive agreement and NOT a treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are truly an uneducated and obviously illiterate partisan hack.
> 
> From my link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A future president cannot undue a UNSC Resolution that had passed.
> 
> The point I've made is that if Iran complies for the next ten to fifteen years there will be no political will to subvert the deal unilaterally by a US President. If Iran does not comply bomb them. So what's your bitching sll about?
Click to expand...


(sigh) Once more an Executive Agreement is NOT legally binding.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No they are not. Those sanctions were set up with the UN and GWB. Obama is going to have a difficult time.



Un, no, they won't. If the P-5 Agreement is made, the P-5 nations are also the ones with Veto power.  So they can get rid of those sanctions.  



ChrisL said:


> Hmm. Does anyone wonder WHY Obama decided to make this deal anyways during his last term? Last lame duck attempt to make a name for himself?



I'm sure that it is. Does that make it a bad thing?  Nixon's overtures to China were done under the gun of watergate, but they were STILL a good thing. 

The best thing we can do is get Iran back in the community of nations. Give it a stake in the world order.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Not laws, treaties. There is no body that enforces laws for the planet, thus no international law.
> The sanctions on Iran are US law, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS.



Actually, most of the sanctions aren't passed with law, they were invoked by past presidents and can be lifted by this one.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me how P5+1 can enforce this "executive agreement".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bombs.
Click to expand...

Who's bombs? Ours? fuck the UN.


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You link disagrees with your statement. It says right in your link that they will have to go through congress and the UN in order to make the agreement binding . . . IOW, if they fail to do this, the next administration does not have to abide by it because it would be an executive agreement and NOT a treaty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are truly an uneducated and obviously illiterate partisan hack.
> 
> From my link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  From the U.S. perspective, the deal will be an executive agreement. The president has the authority to negotiate an executive agreement with a foreign government without congressional involvement. Studies indicate that since the 1930s, 94 percent of all agreements with foreign countries have been executive agreements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .  If concluded, the UN Security Council will also endorse the agreement. Multiple sources, including U.S. and Iranian government officials, have indicated that they will seek endorsement of the deal by a Security Council resolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A future president cannot undue a UNSC Resolution that had passed.
> 
> The point I've made is that if Iran complies for the next ten to fifteen years there will be no political will to subvert the deal unilaterally by a US President. If Iran does not comply bomb them. So what's your bitching sll about?
Click to expand...


Projection , you are the partisan hack.

WE are not under ANY obligation to the UN or any World Court....let your king try and make it so and your side will be destroyed for generations.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Anta 11002694 





Antares said:


> (sigh) Once more an Executive Agreement is NOT legally binding.



It doesn't have to be legally binding - it is effective in that it is better than the status quo specifically if Iran complies. It extends the breakout time and provides better intelligence.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not laws, treaties. There is no body that enforces laws for the planet, thus no international law.
> The sanctions on Iran are US law, passed by Congress and signed by POTUS.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually*, most of the sanctions aren't passed with law, they were invoked by past presidents and can be lifted by this one.
Click to expand...



*Actually* the atheist, Christian, Jew hater Joey seems to have quit a fondness for the fundamentalist, muslim, nutjobs, of Iran...Wierd


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Anta 11003474 





Antares said:


> WE are not under ANY obligation to the UN or any World Court



Why do you suffer from such delusions? I am not of the opinion that the US is under any obligation to the UN or world court when US national  security is at stake. Why do you make such rediculous arguments with yourself?


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> Anta 11003474
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> WE are not under ANY obligation to the UN or any World Court
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you suffer from such delusions? I am not of the opinion that the US is under any obligation to the UN or world court when US national  security is at stake. Why do you make such rediculous arguments with yourself?
Click to expand...


Good.

I am glad you agree that Obama is spinning his wheels.

It is completely non-binding and thus means nothing.

It is pure fucking window dressing so that he can play the King.

Fuck him.


----------



## Vigilante

*American Lawmakers Write Another Letter on Iran!*

Arutz Sheva ^
Bipartisan letter, signed by 360 lawmakers, will remind Obama that sanctions relief on Iran requires new legislation from Congress. A bipartisan letter on Iran signed by 360 members of Congress will be sent to President Barack Obama, one of its House signers said on Thursday, according to The Hill. The letter, similar to the one 47 Senate Republicans recently sent to Tehran's leaders, reminds the administration that permanent sanctions relief on Iran as part of a deal to rollback its nuclear program would require new legislation from Congress. It comes as international negotiators approach a March 24 deadline to reach...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ErnS 11003474 





Ernie S. said:


> Who's bombs? Ours? fuck the UN



Of course ours (US) and any one of law abiding member states of the UN that is threatened by an Iranian attempt to breakout and start trying to make a nuclear weapon after signing an agreement not to do so in exchange for the gradual lifting of sanctions. Did you forget it is all nations that make up the UN.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11003697 





Antares said:


> It is completely non-binding and thus means nothing.



You are cowering from the primary point. It means everything if Iran complies because it resolves a major problem without bombs and without the potential risk for an expanded war. Plus it improves our intelligence if the need to strike Iran becomes necessary.


----------



## Ernie S.

my you are a dumb shit, aren't you?





NotfooledbyW said:


> ErnS 11003474
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's bombs? Ours? fuck the UN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course ours (US) and any one of law abiding member states of the UN that is threatened by an Iranian attempt to breakout and start trying to make a nuclear weapon after signing an agreement not to do so in exchange for the gradual lifting of sanctions. Did you forget it is all nations that make up the UN.
Click to expand...


----------



## Billo_Really

eagle1462010 said:


> Who the hell said we are in constant fear..............Some people are able to realize the threats in this world.........some are to stupid to see the forest for the trees....................
> 
> A Nuclear Iran is not in our Nations interest, nor the region, and nor the world..............
> 
> They cannot be trusted..............especially with Nukes....................and the so called agreements will not do a dang thing to stop their program if signed..................


I believe in dealing with real threats, not made up ones.  And until someone can provide evidence Iran has weaponized their nuclear program, then this is just another made up threat.  Like Iraq had WMD's.  So it is a ridiculous waste of time and energy talking as if they did. Prove they are, then we'll talk about what to do.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Yup, because you are a woman hating Islamic, dishrag wearing homosexual.


Just another example of you making up your own reality.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Oooo, hurt me!


What are you, 4 years old?


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> Exactly.  Thank you for bringing some common sense into this "discussion."


Acting like something is true, without first proving it's true, is not common sense.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> ^^^
> 
> I just love how all the liberal media thinks this is a GOOD idea.  The world has gone insane, I swear.


You think its okay to shoot people fishing, so I wouldn't be calling others crazy.


----------



## Billo_Really

ChrisL said:


> The support and aid worldwide terrorism and attack other countries by proxy using terrorists.  They stone and kill women.  They hang homosexuals.  They are run by religious extremists.  They lie, cheat and deceive.  Their beliefs are that they want to bring the world into the dark ages.  That's just a few things.


They, they, they...

You blame everyone but yourself.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> *Actually* the atheist, Christian, Jew hater Joey seems to have quit a fondness for the fundamentalist, muslim, nutjobs, of Iran...Wierd



No, I just have a sense of fairness.  

Iran is a mess we've made on our own. We put the Shah in power, we propped him up for decades, and then we've spent decades punishing Iran for getting rid of him. 

again- our middle east policy. Stick our dicks in a hornet's nest and complain about getting stung. 

If they want to wipe out the Zionists, why is that MY problem?


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually* the atheist, Christian, Jew hater Joey seems to have quit a fondness for the fundamentalist, muslim, nutjobs, of Iran...Wierd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just have a sense of fairness.
> 
> Iran is a mess we've made on our own. We put the Shah in power, we propped him up for decades, and then we've spent decades punishing Iran for getting rid of him.
> 
> again- our middle east policy. Stick our dicks in a hornet's nest and complain about getting stung.
> 
> *If they want to wipe out the Zionists, why is that MY problem*?
Click to expand...



It's not a problem for you. You'd like to see it. You're on the same page with the mullahs. Maybe you should convert?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Vigi 11003724 





Vigilante said:


> Bipartisan letter, signed by 360 lawmakers, will remind Obama that sanctions relief on Iran requires new legislation from Congress



But it doesn't.



> .Unlike a treaty, which requires the advice and consent of two thirds of the U.S. Senate and is legally binding, the executive agreement between the P5+1 and Iran will not require congressional advice and consent, though Congress will have to, at the appropriate stage, take legislative action to lift certain nuclear-related sanctions on Iran in order to fulfill the terms of the agreement.



Sanctions Relief Timing Key to Iran Deal Arms Control Association 

The US Congress can only involve themselves in US unilateral sanctions against Iran. Like selling US aircraft parts and banking sanctions. The other P4 and Germany can certainly get around those and make the US irrelevant if Iran signs a deal and complies fully. So that would be stupid of a future Congress to attempt such obstruction when Iran complies fully with whatever deal is made including opening up to full IAEA inspection with a breakout period of one year (with a deal) as opposed to a breakout period of three months and far less knowledge of what they are doing if they don't sign this framework for an agreement and kick the IAEA out entirely.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Antares said:


> Nope I understand fully what RADICAL Islam wants, you have your head in the sand.




Radical Islam is not Islam.  Try to be accurate in that significant distinction in the future when spewing your hatred toward the billion plus good people practicing Islam that do not want war.


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I understand fully what RADICAL Islam wants, you have your head in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical Islam is not Islam.  Try to be accurate in that significant distinction in the future when spewing your hatred toward the billion plus good people practicing Islam that do not want war.
Click to expand...


Says a white....partisan hack?

I'll  bet you don't think Oral Sex is sex either.


----------



## Antares

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11003697
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is completely non-binding and thus means nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are cowering from the primary point. It means everything if Iran complies because it resolves a major problem without bombs and without the potential risk for an expanded war. Plus it improves our intelligence if the need to strike Iran becomes necessary.
Click to expand...


Why would Iran comply?

It doesn't fit their theological goals.

You never answered my question, what is the theological belief system of the Mullahs, you know...the guys in charge?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they are not. Those sanctions were set up with the UN and GWB. Obama is going to have a difficult time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Un, no, they won't. If the P-5 Agreement is made, the P-5 nations are also the ones with Veto power.  So they can get rid of those sanctions.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Does anyone wonder WHY Obama decided to make this deal anyways during his last term? Last lame duck attempt to make a name for himself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that it is. Does that make it a bad thing?  Nixon's overtures to China were done under the gun of watergate, but they were STILL a good thing.
> 
> The best thing we can do is get Iran back in the community of nations. Give it a stake in the world order.
Click to expand...


Hello?  Best you pay ATTENTION to what is happening!  

Is Obama Sidestepping Congress and Going to UN on Iran Deal CNS News

During testimony on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry told lawmakers that *the U.S. is not negotiating a “legally binding” agreement with Iran and, therefore, does not have to be submitted to Congress. *This is interesting, because the actual nature of the agreement was unclear before that clarification. It is doubly interesting because it seems to contradict Iran’s understanding of what is being negotiated.


----------



## ChrisL

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The support and aid worldwide terrorism and attack other countries by proxy using terrorists.  They stone and kill women.  They hang homosexuals.  They are run by religious extremists.  They lie, cheat and deceive.  Their beliefs are that they want to bring the world into the dark ages.  That's just a few things.
> 
> 
> 
> They, they, they...
> 
> You blame everyone but yourself.
Click to expand...


You're an idiot.


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I understand fully what RADICAL Islam wants, you have your head in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical Islam is not Islam.  Try to be accurate in that significant distinction in the future when spewing your hatred toward the billion plus good people practicing Islam that do not want war.
Click to expand...

radical islamists are willing to die to convert you.
non-radical islamists aren't. They still want to control the world via a calliphate and they are enablers of the radicals.


----------



## ChrisL

Slyhunter said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I understand fully what RADICAL Islam wants, you have your head in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical Islam is not Islam.  Try to be accurate in that significant distinction in the future when spewing your hatred toward the billion plus good people practicing Islam that do not want war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> radical islamists are willing to die to convert you.
> non-radical islamists aren't. They still want to control the world via a calliphate and they are enablers of the radicals.
Click to expand...


I totally believe that to be truth.  If there is anything I despise in this world, it is Islam.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The support and aid worldwide terrorism and attack other countries by proxy using terrorists.  They stone and kill women.  They hang homosexuals.  They are run by religious extremists.  They lie, cheat and deceive.  Their beliefs are that they want to bring the world into the dark ages.  That's just a few things.
> 
> 
> 
> They, they, they...
> 
> You blame everyone but yourself.
Click to expand...




Billo_Really said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The support and aid worldwide terrorism and attack other countries by proxy using terrorists.  They stone and kill women.  They hang homosexuals.  They are run by religious extremists.  They lie, cheat and deceive.  Their beliefs are that they want to bring the world into the dark ages.  That's just a few things.
> 
> 
> 
> They, they, they...
> 
> You blame everyone but yourself.
Click to expand...


The only people to blame for the Radical Islamists behavior are the radical islamists......


----------



## Moonglow

ChrisL said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope I understand fully what RADICAL Islam wants, you have your head in the sand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical Islam is not Islam.  Try to be accurate in that significant distinction in the future when spewing your hatred toward the billion plus good people practicing Islam that do not want war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> radical islamists are willing to die to convert you.
> non-radical islamists aren't. They still want to control the world via a calliphate and they are enablers of the radicals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I totally believe that to be truth.  If there is anything I despise in this world, it is Islam.
Click to expand...

Toe nail fungus for me....


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> It's not a problem for you. You'd like to see it. You're on the same page with the mullahs. Maybe you should convert?



Yes, when you go live next to people who WANT TO KILL YOU for STEALING THEIR LAND, you really don't get a lot of sypmathy from me.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Hello? Best you pay ATTENTION to what is happening!



again, can't get worked up because the Persians have a bomb.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello? Best you pay ATTENTION to what is happening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, can't get worked up because the Persians have a bomb.
Click to expand...


Says who?


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> The only people to blame for the Radical Islamists behavior are the radical islamists......


What about your radical behavior?

Do you take responsibility for that?


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people to blame for the Radical Islamists behavior are the radical islamists......
> 
> 
> 
> What about your radical behavior?
> 
> Do you take responsibility for that?
Click to expand...


Well let's see.......

Beheading people, nope.
Burning people up....nope.
Stoning women.....nope.
BLowing innocent people all to hell....nope.

Nope, I'm good.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people to blame for the Radical Islamists behavior are the radical islamists......
> 
> 
> 
> What about your radical behavior?
> 
> Do you take responsibility for that?
Click to expand...



Wait...I do take responsibility for making you look like a dumb fuck.

Ya got me.
Ya got the tater.

Idiot.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Wait...I do take responsibility for making you look like a dumb fuck.
> 
> Ya got me.
> Ya got the tater.
> 
> Idiot.


You watch too much TV!


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Well let's see.......
> 
> Beheading people, nope.
> Burning people up....nope.
> Stoning women.....nope.
> BLowing innocent people all to hell....nope.
> 
> Nope, I'm good.


And you're a fuckin' liar!

Do you know what happens to someone's head when they're struck by a missile from a Predator drone?  Do you know how badly bodies were burned in Fallujah when we hit them with a little Willie Peat? Innocent people were blown all to hell in Gaza, you didn't mind that?

So yeah, you are responsible.


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well let's see.......
> 
> Beheading people, nope.
> Burning people up....nope.
> Stoning women.....nope.
> BLowing innocent people all to hell....nope.
> 
> Nope, I'm good.
> 
> 
> 
> And you're a fuckin' liar!
> 
> Do you know what happens to someone's head when they're struck by a missile from a Predator drone?  Do you know how badly bodies were burned in Fallujah when we hit them with a little Willie Peat? Innocent people were blown all to hell in Gaza, you didn't mind that?
> 
> So yeah, you are responsible.
Click to expand...


I don't give a shit what happens to a bunch of illiterate Radical Islamists, they've earned everything they've gotten.

(shrugs) If you feel that strongly pussy boy go help them.
No?

I didn't think so.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11009426 





Slyhunter said:


> radical islamists are willing to die to convert you.



Do you mean suicide bombers? Do you think that is a meaningful and productive method for converting non-Muslims to Islam?


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a problem for you. You'd like to see it. You're on the same page with the mullahs. Maybe you should convert?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you go live next to people who WANT TO KILL YOU for STEALING THEIR LAND, you really don't get a lot of sypmathy from me.
Click to expand...

Same ole stealing land BS, as usual from those who would rather see Israel driven into the sea and destroyed............Doesn't hold any water with me, nor the truth................as the Jews have as much right to these lands as the arabs do.......................

And if they really wanted to attack those that stole their land they should look to Jordan who took control of most of the original Mandate.  Upon the creation of Israel Jordan occupied the disputed areas, as did Egypt during the War even though Israel eventually Won the War.............

It was Jordan and Egypt that set up the Ghettos and didn't officially claim the land for themselves as their National boundaries...............Most of Israel, 60%, was desert.............and not really claimed by any............Not to mention that the Jews were driven as refugees out of Arab lands shortly before the war started........There were more Jews in Jerusalum at that time than arabs............roughly 800,000 Jews were driven from their homes.  People like you are never interested in that side of the story.............

In the 2 Wars to follow.........Israel defeated Syria and Egypt both times eventually taking the land by force in the War..............YET THEY GAVE IT BACK...........Only to be forced to go back in to these zones because of repeated attacks from these areas............

Under agreements in these areas, Israel leaves on several occasions only to be attacked from these positions again.  With the exception of the Golan heights because they refused to give up these defensive positions...........

Your ignorance of History, and total backing of the LIE of Stolen land is typical of those who would like the slaughter of the Jews................Just as Hitler did...............Just as the Grand Mufti did............as his arab forces helped the SLAUGHTER OF ETHNIC minorities in Bosnia during WWII.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello? Best you pay ATTENTION to what is happening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, can't get worked up because the Persians have a bomb.
Click to expand...

I can, because they can't be trusted with the bomb as they are a country that openly supports Terrorism.........who via proxy attack Israel every day...........who assisted their proxy troops to KILL AMERICANS in both Iraq and Afghanistan during these Wars..............of which one is still ongoing.............

We are cutting a deal................WITH a country that SENDS OR MEN AND WOMEN HOME IN BOXES..................

THAT'S BS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11011261 





eagle1462010 said:


> that SENDS OR MEN AND WOMEN HOME IN BOXES..................



Do you have any reliable confirmed reports of such a claim?


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> I don't give a shit what happens to a bunch of illiterate Radical Islamists, they've earned everything they've gotten.
> 
> (shrugs) If you feel that strongly pussy boy go help them.
> No?
> 
> I didn't think so.


You call them illiterate, yet speak of "them", like they are one entity, with one mind set and one goal.  When it comes to being illiterate, there is no better example than you hayseed-dickboy-inbred-rednecks walking around in your wife-beaters.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagl 11011261
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> that SENDS OR MEN AND WOMEN HOME IN BOXES..................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any reliable confirmed reports of such a claim?
Click to expand...

I've seen that data from the Commanding Generals of the Wars and lower commanders saying the same.........whether under Obama the CIA or CENTCOM have officially reported it would need to be dug for.............

But I've seen enough over time to believe it..............as they do it to Israel all the time.


----------



## eagle1462010

Iran U. S. Concerns and Policy Responses - Kenneth Katzman - Google Books


----------



## eagle1462010

CONGRESSIONAL REPORT..............

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/Petraeus-Testimony20070910.pdf

In the past six months we have also targeted Shia militia extremists, capturing a number of senior leaders and fighters, as well as the deputy commander of Lebanese Hezbollah Department 2800, the organization created to support the training, arming, funding, and, in some cases, direction of the militia extremists by the Iranian Republican Guard Corps’ Qods Force. These elements have assassinated and kidnapped Iraqi governmental leaders,* killed and wounded our soldiers with advanced explosive devices provided by Iran*, and indiscriminately rocketed civilians in the International Zone and elsewhere. It is increasingly apparent to both Coalition and Iraqi leaders* that Iran, through the use of the Qods Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq.*


----------



## eagle1462010

As I've already stated..............we are cutting a Fing Deal with a country that has helped send our MEN HOME IN BODY BAGS............................

It is BS.


----------



## Vigilante

Has anyone mentioned in this thread that the LETTER was never sent to Iran, but simply posted on the Senator's website?


----------



## eagle1462010

Vigilante said:


> Has anyone mentioned in this thread that the LETTER was never sent to Iran, but simply posted on the Senator's website?


Haven't seen that information posted...................

It's not really an issue though...........as the Senators knew Iran would see it....................

They wanted Iran to know their stance..................and I have no problem with it...........we are trying to cut a deal with a country that will never honor it anyway...................and a country that has assisted those in combat with our military..............and in direct combat with Quds forces throughout the War.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## NotfooledbyW

_"Iranian military advisors rubbed shoulders with U.S. military personnel in the Northern Alliance areas. Tehran even said it would give sanctuary for distressed U.S. military personnel inside its territory. It also allowed the United States to transport humanitarian goods to Afghanistan through Iranian land. Iran reportedly suggested the best targets for U.S. bombers._

_"U.S. and Iranian envoys worked together at the conference--the most fruitful encounter between the two since the 1979 revolution. Both wanted Afghanistan free of the Taliban and al Qaeda. " _*See PBS Link below*:

It's too bad what Bush did to that relationship:

eagl 11011383 





eagle1462010 said:


> I've seen that data...



Good for you. Let's see the data.

The overall history of Iranian involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan does explain why Bush allied the US military operation in Iraq with the Quds Force trained militias that came into Iraq in 2003 along with the guy holding hands with Bush in this photo :




NotfooledbyW said:


> Home > News & Policies > December 2006
> 
> *President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper
> 
> 
> 
> President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
> 
> That' is who brought Iran trained Badr a Militia into Iraq.





> .
> *Iran and the Taliban*
> 
> Amid the chaos, the Taliban, an obscure group of young Pushtun religious students, rose to power. Their ideology was a strange combination of Wahhabism and Deobandism. Iran was astonishingly slow to recognize the Taliban's dazzling rise and the pivotal support provided by Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. In 1995, Herat fell to the Taliban, and a year later, they overthrew President Rabbani--a major defeat for Iran and a clear victory for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
> 
> Iran, unlike Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, refused to recognize the Taliban, and sought to return Rabbani to power. It participated in the U.N. "Six Plus Two" talks on Afghanistan's future, but Iran's strategic investment was to generously support the Northern Alliance made up of Tajiks, Uzbeks and Shiite fighters. India and Russia supported the alliance, but Iran was its principle source of military assistance.
> 
> *Broken relations*
> 
> Iranian support for the Northern Alliance, the Taliban's most formidable rival, created serious animosity between Tehran and Kabul. They severed diplomatic relations in 1997. Iran accused the Taliban of being "narco-terrorists," whose antediluvian ideology and draconian laws made Afghanistan a huge prison. Iran's relations with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia also deteriorated.
> 
> Iran provided key support for the Northern Alliance when the Taliban tried to capture its interim capital at Mazar-e Sharif. The Taliban initially was pushed back. But with Pakistani support, the Taliban ultimately prevailed, killing more than 2,000 people. They also kidnapped and killed eight Iranian diplomats and one journalist, which led Iran and Afghanistan dangerously close to war. Tehran massed some 200,000 troops on its eastern border, but the threat only made the Taliban more belligerent. They raided Iran's cultural center in Mazar-e Sharif and set its library ablaze. Thereafter, Tehran increased support for the Northern Alliance while the Taliban ruled most of Afghanistan.
> 
> *Washington's gift*
> 
> After al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, Iran was the recipient of an unintended strategic gift from Washington. The Taliban, who had developed a symbiotic relationship with al Qaeda, were forcefully removed from power after the United States provided air power and intelligence for the Northern Alliance, Iran's ally. Iranian military advisors rubbed shoulders with U.S. military personnel in the Northern Alliance areas. Tehran even said it would give sanctuary for distressed U.S. military personnel inside its territory. It also allowed the United States to transport humanitarian goods to Afghanistan through Iranian land. Iran reportedly suggested the best targets for U.S. bombers.
> 
> Iran also participated in the U.S.-sponsored Bonn Conference in December 2001. U.S. and Iranian envoys worked together at the conference--the most fruitful encounter between the two since the 1979 revolution. Both wanted Afghanistan free of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Iran favored the return of President Rabbani, but it agreed to support U.S.-backed Hamid Karzai. The tactical cooperation between the United States and Iran continued, even as they were competing for greater influence in a new Afghanistan. Iranian cooperation with the United States ended in 2002, after President George Bush cited Iran as a member of the "axis of evil."
> 
> *Iran and the new Afghanistan*
> 
> Iran has four major goals in Afghanistan:
> 
> * To collaborate with Karzai without abandoning supports for other Afghan allies
> 
> * To invest in Afghan reconstruction to create a "sphere of influence" and a security zone in the Herat region
> 
> * To avoid direct confrontation with the United States, while pressuring Kabul to distance itself from the United States and insure that Afghanistan is not used to attack Iran
> 
> 
> Read more: Iran Primer Iran and Afghanistan - Tehran Bureau FRONTLINE PBS




With regard to Iraq do you consider this to be *clear cut data* or propaganda?



> . Iran’s leaders took two lessons from the Iran-Iraq War. The first was that Iran was surrounded by enemies, near and far. To the regime, the invasion was not so much an Iraqi plot as a Western one. American officials were aware of Saddam’s preparations to invade Iran in 1980, and they later provided him with targeting information used in chemical-weapons attacks; the weapons themselves were built with the help of Western European firms.* The memory of these attacks is an especially bitter one. “Do you know how many people are still suffering from the effects of chemical weapons?*” Mehdi Khalaji, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said. *“Thousands of former soldiers. They believe these were Western weapons given to Saddam*.” In 1987, during a battle with the Iraqi Army, *a division under Suleimani’s command was attacked by artillery shells containing chemical weapons. More than a hundred of his men suffered the effects.*



The Shadow Commander - The New Yorker


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a shit what happens to a bunch of illiterate Radical Islamists, they've earned everything they've gotten.
> 
> (shrugs) If you feel that strongly pussy boy go help them.
> No?
> 
> I didn't think so.
> 
> 
> 
> You call them illiterate, yet speak of "them", like they are one entity, with one mind set and one goal.  When it comes to being illiterate, there is no better example than you hayseed-dickboy-inbred-rednecks walking around in your wife-beaters.
Click to expand...

Too funny kid.

Radical Islam IS a"them".

Did you actually PAY for your education?

Whatever they charged you was too much.


----------



## kaz

eagle1462010 said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hello? Best you pay ATTENTION to what is happening!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again, can't get worked up because the Persians have a bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can, because they can't be trusted with the bomb as they are a country that openly supports Terrorism.........who via proxy attack Israel every day...........who assisted their proxy troops to KILL AMERICANS in both Iraq and Afghanistan during these Wars..............of which one is still ongoing.............
> 
> We are cutting a deal................WITH a country that SENDS OR MEN AND WOMEN HOME IN BOXES..................
> 
> THAT'S BS.
Click to expand...


Joe actually wants Iran to have two bombs.  One for Tel Aviv, one for Salt Lake City.  He's liberal you know, you can tell from his tolerance


----------



## ChrisL

Vigilante said:


> Has anyone mentioned in this thread that the LETTER was never sent to Iran, but simply posted on the Senator's website?



I knew that.    The MSM tried to blow it WAY out of proportion.


----------



## Roadrunner

Statistikhengst said:


> Republicans Warn Iran -- and Obama -- That Deal Won t Last - Bloomberg View
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A group of 47 Republican senators has written an open letter to Iran's leaders warning them that any nuclear deal they sign with President Barack Obama's administration won’t last after Obama leaves office.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Organized by freshman Senator Tom Cotton and signed by the chamber's entire party leadership as well as potential 2016 presidential contenders Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, the letter is meant not just to discourage the Iranian regime from signing a deal but also to pressure the White House into giving Congress some authority over the process.
> 
> “It has come to our attention while observing your nuclear negotiations with our government that you may not fully understand our constitutional system … Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement,” the senators wrote. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
> 
> Arms-control advocates and supporters of the negotiations argue that the next president and the next Congress will have a hard time changing or canceling any Iran deal -- -- which is reportedly near done -- especially if it is working reasonably well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, this is new, even in the world of the GOP batshit-crazy. This really does one-up it all. It's also kind of funny that there is a constitutional error in what the Senators wrote to the government of Iran. The Senate does NOT ratify treaties. That is even indicated directly on their Senate website.  Instead, the Senate takes up a resolution of ratification, by which the Senate formally gives its advice and consent, _empowering the president to proceed with ratification_” . It's a fine point, almost splitting hairs, but worth noting.
> 
> So, Republicans hate this Democratic President so much that they are even willing to pen a letter to someone they consider an enemy of ours.
> 
> Back to the Bloomberg link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's stunning. And it's a rebuke on an international stage that doesn't really have a precedent. Imagine Democrats micro-managing the START talks in the 80s by sending an open letter to Gorbachev? It just wouldn't have been viewed as an acceptable political move while the talks were still happening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only conclusion we can make is that the GOP is not the loyal opposition, it is a severly disloyal opposition and deserves to be treated with disdain and contempt for such unamerican behavior. The GOP simply hates America, it's that simple.
Click to expand...



This differs from Obama going directly to the Iranian people HOW?????


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Same ole stealing land BS, as usual from those who would rather see Israel driven into the sea and destroyed............Doesn't hold any water with me, nor the truth................as the Jews have as much right to these lands as the arabs do.......................
> 
> And if they really wanted to attack those that stole their land they should look to Jordan who took control of most of the original Mandate. Upon the creation of Israel Jordan occupied the disputed areas, as did Egypt during the War even though Israel eventually Won the War.............
> 
> It was Jordan and Egypt that set up the Ghettos and didn't officially claim the land for themselves as their National boundaries...............Most of Israel, 60%, was desert



Yup, the usual Zionist myths.  We made a desert bloom, there was no one living there until we got there, the usual horseshit.  them Arabs are just attacking us because they are mean old anti-Semites.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> I can, because they can't be trusted with the bomb as they are a country that openly supports Terrorism.........who via proxy attack Israel every day...........who assisted their proxy troops to KILL AMERICANS in both Iraq and Afghanistan during these Wars..............of which one is still ongoing.............



again- only country to ever use atom bombs on people was ours.  

Maybe we can't be trusted with a bomb. 

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> As I've already stated..............we are cutting a Fing Deal with a country that has helped send our MEN HOME IN BODY BAGS............................
> 
> It is BS.



We do that all the time.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Rr 11012853 





Roadrunner said:


> This differs from Obama going directly to the Iranian people HOW?????



Does it matter to you what was said by Obama to you at all. The Cotton 47 was a direct appeal to the hardliners in Iran to join forces with the US rightwing hardliners in order to subvert the negotiation process and prevent a deal. What a team.,

Obama's appeal was to Iran's youth and moderates to support the deal and pressure their hardliners to disregard their new partners (the idiot US hardliner and allow reasonable moderate people in both nations to prevail.

That the biggest difference. It is who the Cotton 47 are aligned with in Iran now.


----------



## eagle1462010

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can, because they can't be trusted with the bomb as they are a country that openly supports Terrorism.........who via proxy attack Israel every day...........who assisted their proxy troops to KILL AMERICANS in both Iraq and Afghanistan during these Wars..............of which one is still ongoing.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again- only country to ever use atom bombs on people was ours.
> 
> Maybe we can't be trusted with a bomb.
> 
> One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Click to expand...

Lame ass standard quotes.  We only used it back then to end the War quickly as our casualties would have numbered a million or more if we invaded Japan.............and it was a world war and not a pissing contest with a piss ant country like Iran. 

And again you take the side of our enemy over the United States.  They Chant DEATH TO AMERICA Joe and you classify them as possible Freedom Fighters......


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> Lame ass standard quotes. We only used it back then to end the War quickly as our casualties would have numbered a million or more if we invaded Japan.............and it was a world war and not a pissing contest with a piss ant country like Iran.



Horseshit.  first and foremost, Japan was already defeated and looking for surrender terms. We didn't need to drop the nukes on them and we didn't need to invade them.  What prompted their surrender was the USSR's entry into the Pacific War. Once it looked like Russia might take all the prizes, we suddenly agreed to THEIR terms. 

We just had these bombs that a lot of career people had spent building and dammit, they were going to use it on someone because people were asking a lot of questions about where all that money went. 



eagle1462010 said:


> And again you take the side of our enemy over the United States. They Chant DEATH TO AMERICA Joe and you classify them as possible Freedom Fighters......



But the question that you never ask yourself is WHY they chant "Death to America".  We are the ones who put the Shah back into power after they voted him out, and the Shah spent 25 years oppressing the shit out of them. 

We Americans tend to be narcissitic.  We do horrible things to countries like Cuba or Iran, and they rise up against us and our puppets, and then we spend decades punishing them for it. It's really, really a stupid policy.


----------



## MaryAnne

What??? You mean Cotton was right? They just took over Tehran?


----------



## MaryAnne

JoeB131 said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lame ass standard quotes. We only used it back then to end the War quickly as our casualties would have numbered a million or more if we invaded Japan.............and it was a world war and not a pissing contest with a piss ant country like Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit.  first and foremost, Japan was already defeated and looking for surrender terms. We didn't need to drop the nukes on them and we didn't need to invade them.  What prompted their surrender was the USSR's entry into the Pacific War. Once it looked like Russia might take all the prizes, we suddenly agreed to THEIR terms.
> 
> We just had these bombs that a lot of career people had spent building and dammit, they were going to use it on someone because people were asking a lot of questions about where all that money went.
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And again you take the side of our enemy over the United States. They Chant DEATH TO AMERICA Joe and you classify them as possible Freedom Fighters......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the question that you never ask yourself is WHY they chant "Death to America".  We are the ones who put the Shah back into power after they voted him out, and the Shah spent 25 years oppressing the shit out of them.
> 
> We Americans tend to be narcissitic.  We do horrible things to countries like Cuba or Iran, and they rise up against us and our puppets, and then we spend decades punishing them for it. It's really, really a stupid policy.
Click to expand...



With your post it is very clear you did not live during WW2, or know the least thing about it. You do know there are a few still around who were there,even to sign the Armistice?

Hihrohito had vowed to fight to the last man. So President Truman had to make the terrible decision to use the bomb. He did,saving at the least a million American lives. Those are your Grandparents, great Grandparents and you should be thanking your lucky stars they lived instead of telling a made up story you heard from some one who was not there.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryAnne said:


> With your post it is very clear you did not live during WW2, or know the least thing about it. You do know there are a few still around who were there,even to sign the Armistice?
> 
> Hihrohito had vowed to fight to the last man. So President Truman had to make the terrible decision to use the bomb. He did,saving at the least a million American lives. Those are your Grandparents, great Grandparents and you should be thanking your lucky stars they lived instead of telling a made up story you heard from some one who was not there.



My dad was a WWII vet. 

And, no, the Japanese were not vowing to fight to the last man.  Most of their best units were stranded in China and South East Asia, anyway.  

by July 1945, the Japanese were already making overtures through the Swiss and Russians to make a peace treaty.  

Also the "Million american lives" number is utter bullshit made up after the war when people realized what a horrible thing we had done.  at the time, the causualty estimates for Operation Olympic were only about 10,000 allied troops.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a problem for you. You'd like to see it. You're on the same page with the mullahs. Maybe you should convert?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, when you go live next to people who WANT TO KILL YOU for STEALING THEIR LAND, you really don't get a lot of sypmathy from me.
Click to expand...

So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest?  I thought it was Arab land?


----------



## MaryAnne

JoeB131 said:


> MaryAnne said:
> 
> 
> 
> With your post it is very clear you did not live during WW2, or know the least thing about it. You do know there are a few still around who were there,even to sign the Armistice?
> 
> Hihrohito had vowed to fight to the last man. So President Truman had to make the terrible decision to use the bomb. He did,saving at the least a million American lives. Those are your Grandparents, great Grandparents and you should be thanking your lucky stars they lived instead of telling a made up story you heard from some one who was not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a WWII vet.
> 
> And, no, the Japanese were not vowing to fight to the last man.  Most of their best units were stranded in China and South East Asia, anyway.
> 
> by July 1945, the Japanese were already making overtures through the Swiss and Russians to make a peace treaty.
> 
> Also the "Million american lives" number is utter bullshit made up after the war when people realized what a horrible thing we had done.  at the time, the causualty estimates for Operation Olympic were only about 10,000 allied troops.
Click to expand...

 So was my Dad,and my husband, plus Uncles,future BIL's, many friends were in that area. One was there when they signed the Armastice. He is still alive.

Are you saying your Dad said Truman made a mistake? Those who lived to come home would differ with you. What the Japanese were saying and what the Emporer said were two different things.


----------



## natstew

JoeB131, 1st, you are an idiot when it comes to WW2.

2nd, the Iranian s, Iraqi, and Afghannistan terrorists listened to the Democrats giving encouragement, support, and telling them to wait until the Democrats took over and  the U.S. forces would be withdrawn, from the floor of the Senate and House. Basically giving them a 'game plan for victory.

 Now that's what I call treason!!


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> MaryAnne said:
> 
> 
> 
> With your post it is very clear you did not live during WW2, or know the least thing about it. You do know there are a few still around who were there,even to sign the Armistice?
> 
> Hihrohito had vowed to fight to the last man. So President Truman had to make the terrible decision to use the bomb. He did,saving at the least a million American lives. Those are your Grandparents, great Grandparents and you should be thanking your lucky stars they lived instead of telling a made up story you heard from some one who was not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a WWII vet.
> 
> And, no, the Japanese were not vowing to fight to the last man.  Most of their best units were stranded in China and South East Asia, anyway.
> 
> by July 1945, the Japanese were already making overtures through the Swiss and Russians to make a peace treaty.
> 
> Also the "Million american lives" number is utter bullshit made up after the war when people realized what a horrible thing we had done.  at the time, the causualty estimates for Operation Olympic were only about 10,000 allied troops.
Click to expand...

Japan did know they were all but done, but refused to agree to the US's terms, namely, removal of the Emperor from power.
2 bombs later, Douglas MacArthur was essentially Emperor of Japan.
A message of capitulation was sent the day after the Nagasaki bomb.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

nats 11018811 





natstew said:


> 2nd, the Iranian s, Iraqi, and Afghannistan terrorists listened to the Democrats giving encouragement, support, and telling them to wait until the Democrats took over and the U.S. forces would be withdrawn, from the floor of the Senate and House. Basically giving them a 'game plan for victory.



Are you nuts? Afghanistan? Obama ordered 20,000 more troops over there within a month of taking office and another 30,000 by December. He added 200,000 Afghan Police and troops by our men and women training and advising them, Obama saved Afghanistan from what Bush damn near lost.

Iraq? Bush and Maliki told the terrorist in December 2008 exactly when US troops had to be gone. Obama kept troops there to the end of that deadline.  Iraqis did not want any troops to remain after 2011. Just a fact.

Iran? Iran moved into Iraq sending the Quds trained Badr Brigades under the Tehran based ISCI in 2003 following the Bush43 dumb war invasion.

This is who brought Iranian influence into Iraq:



NotfooledbyW said:


> December 2006. *President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper
> 
> 
> 
> President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
> .


.

And the fool pictured on the right is gosh darn proud of it.


----------



## MaryAnne

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryAnne said:
> 
> 
> 
> With your post it is very clear you did not live during WW2, or know the least thing about it. You do know there are a few still around who were there,even to sign the Armistice?
> 
> Hihrohito had vowed to fight to the last man. So President Truman had to make the terrible decision to use the bomb. He did,saving at the least a million American lives. Those are your Grandparents, great Grandparents and you should be thanking your lucky stars they lived instead of telling a made up story you heard from some one who was not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a WWII vet.
> 
> And, no, the Japanese were not vowing to fight to the last man.  Most of their best units were stranded in China and South East Asia, anyway.
> 
> by July 1945, the Japanese were already making overtures through the Swiss and Russians to make a peace treaty.
> 
> Also the "Million american lives" number is utter bullshit made up after the war when people realized what a horrible thing we had done.  at the time, the causualty estimates for Operation Olympic were only about 10,000 allied troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan did know they were all but done, but refused to agree to the US's terms, namely, removal of the Emperor from power.
> 2 bombs later, Douglas MacArthur was essentially Emperor of Japan.
> A message of capitulation was sent the day after the Nagasaki bomb.
Click to expand...

 
You are right on that one. The Emporer refused  to surrender.

Then, MacArthur refused to obey President Truman. He was gone,too.

Eisenhower then went on to become a great Republican President, created the Interstate system to modernize our Country. I wish we could find one like him today and a Congress that would care about our Country instead of their petty,childish wants.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

nats 11018811 





natstew said:


> Basically giving them a 'game plan for victory



What a sick person you are to suggest that the Daesh terrorist scum, murderers, thieves, desecrators and child rapists and worse have a "game plan for victory".  You are doing the terrorist a great service by giving them credibility to achieve victory when they have no possible chance of taking over for any length of time to be recognized as a nation or state. They have no Air Force or Navy. They have little means if food water and electricity production sufficient to manufacture and produce goods including military goods. How do they have a game plan for victory without any kind if plan for guarding the air space over their so called caliphate?

How do they feed their populations when grain silos are no longer available to be robbed? They took brief control of the Mosul dam that I believe produces much of the electricity for Mosul. Then they were defeated and driven off of it. So the electric source for the wannabe capitol of their wannabe caliphate is under the control and protection of it's fiercest enemies including US fighter and drone pilots - heroes to the good people of this world.

And you think Daesh terrorist scum have a game plan for victory?

How ridiculous can you get?

They have lost most of the territory they plundered in Northern Iraq las summer. They are surrounded and hiding behind planted bombs and IEDs in Tikrit. They could not take Kobani on the Syria Turkey border. Many supply routes between Syria and Iraq have been denied them. God's gift to Iraq EconChick was wrong about Route Irish -so badly she disappeared for a long while. Things are going badly for the Daesh cheerleading team.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest? I thought it was Arab land?



I think you are confusing hte issue, but that's okay, when you are arguing for continuing an attrocity, I can't expect much more.  

So let's talk about why you are shitting your pants over the thought of Iran having a nuke. Not that they would ever use it.  But because it would put them on an equal footing with the Zionshits.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryAnne said:


> So was my Dad,and my husband, plus Uncles,future BIL's, many friends were in that area. One was there when they signed the Armastice. He is still alive.
> 
> Are you saying your Dad said Truman made a mistake? Those who lived to come home would differ with you. What the Japanese were saying and what the Emporer said were two different things.



My Dad and your various relatives were not in the halls of power nor did they have the information our leaders had.   the fact was, everyone knew the Japanese had been beaten and the people who had the practical military experience- namely Ike and MacArthur - felt the use of the bombs were unneeded.


----------



## JoeB131

natstew said:


> JoeB131, 1st, you are an idiot when it comes to WW2.



I have a history degree from the University of Illinois that says otherwise.  



natstew said:


> 2nd, the Iranian s, Iraqi, and Afghannistan terrorists listened to the Democrats giving encouragement, support, and telling them to wait until the Democrats took over and the U.S. forces would be withdrawn, from the floor of the Senate and House. Basically giving them a 'game plan for victory.



really? You really think that?  Hey, dumbass, here's the thing.  These are civilizations that are THOUSANDS of years older than ours, they've seen invaders come and they've seen invaders go. And its not like they had any other option BUT to wait for us to get tired and leave.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Japan did know they were all but done, but refused to agree to the US's terms, namely, removal of the Emperor from power.
> 2 bombs later, Douglas MacArthur was essentially Emperor of Japan.
> A message of capitulation was sent the day after the Nagasaki bomb.



And two days after the Russians sent 13 Armies into Manchuria... which is what really caused the surrender. 

You see, the thing was, AFTER the Russians got into the war and made more progress in a week than we made in years of "Island Hopping", that's when we decided, Hey, maybe Hirohito wasn't such a bad guy after all.  Maybe we could even live with him staying in power and never being punished for his part in instigating the war. 

You see, here's the thing with the bombs.  they weren't that powerful... only about 15 Kilotons for the Hiroshima bomb and 21 for the one dropped on Nagasaki. By comparison, the Operation Meeting House raid on Tokyo (march 10, 1945) dropped . 1665 tons of incendiary bombs and killed far more people than the Hiroshima bomb did. 

On the other hand, the Soviet entry into the Pacific war really was a game-changer.  It opened a whole new front against Japan where Japan had absolutely no defense.  Defenses on Hokkaido, the northernmost Island, was two poorly trained divisions because most of the units the Army had in Japan were concentrated on the South.


----------



## Dot Com

MaryAnne said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryAnne said:
> 
> 
> 
> With your post it is very clear you did not live during WW2, or know the least thing about it. You do know there are a few still around who were there,even to sign the Armistice?
> 
> Hihrohito had vowed to fight to the last man. So President Truman had to make the terrible decision to use the bomb. He did,saving at the least a million American lives. Those are your Grandparents, great Grandparents and you should be thanking your lucky stars they lived instead of telling a made up story you heard from some one who was not there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My dad was a WWII vet.
> 
> And, no, the Japanese were not vowing to fight to the last man.  Most of their best units were stranded in China and South East Asia, anyway.
> 
> by July 1945, the Japanese were already making overtures through the Swiss and Russians to make a peace treaty.
> 
> Also the "Million american lives" number is utter bullshit made up after the war when people realized what a horrible thing we had done.  at the time, the causualty estimates for Operation Olympic were only about 10,000 allied troops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Japan did know they were all but done, but refused to agree to the US's terms, namely, removal of the Emperor from power.
> 2 bombs later, Douglas MacArthur was essentially Emperor of Japan.
> A message of capitulation was sent the day after the Nagasaki bomb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are right on that one. The Emporer refused  to surrender.
> 
> Then, MacArthur refused to obey President Truman. He was gone,too.
> 
> Eisenhower then went on to become a great Republican President, created the Interstate system to modernize our Country. I wish we could find one like him today and a Congress that would care about our Country instead of their petty,childish wants.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't be able to even get into the Repub Primaries as far Right as Republicorp has shifted toots.


----------



## MaryAnne

JoeB131 said:


> MaryAnne said:
> 
> 
> 
> So was my Dad,and my husband, plus Uncles,future BIL's, many friends were in that area. One was there when they signed the Armastice. He is still alive.
> 
> Are you saying your Dad said Truman made a mistake? Those who lived to come home would differ with you. What the Japanese were saying and what the Emporer said were two different things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Dad and your various relatives were not in the halls of power nor did they have the information our leaders had.   the fact was, everyone knew the Japanese had been beaten and the people who had the practical military experience- namely Ike and MacArthur - felt the use of the bombs were unneeded.
Click to expand...

But the man who was there when the Armistace was signed was most certainly in your so called Halls of power.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryAnne said:


> But the man who was there when the Armistace was signed was most certainly in your so called Halls of power.



I'd be more impressed if you could spell Armistice.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Too funny kid.
> 
> Radical Islam IS a"them".
> 
> Did you actually PAY for your education?
> 
> Whatever they charged you was too much.


So a billion people are one entity and they all think the same?

You are one scared, little bitch!


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest? I thought it was Arab land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing hte issue, but that's okay, when you are arguing for continuing an attrocity, I can't expect much more.
> 
> So let's talk about why you are shitting your pants over the thought of Iran having a nuke. Not that they would ever use it.  But because it would put them on an equal footing with the Zionshits.
Click to expand...


I'd be much more impressed if you could spell "the"


Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too funny kid.
> 
> Radical Islam IS a"them".
> 
> Did you actually PAY for your education?
> 
> Whatever they charged you was too much.
> 
> 
> 
> So a billion people are one entity and they all think the same?
> 
> You are one scared, little bitch!
Click to expand...


You just keep looking more stupid kid.

I'd like to see where anybody ever claimed that ALL Muslims were "Radical"?

I won't hold my breath


----------



## Billo_Really

eagle1462010 said:


> Same ole stealing land BS, as usual from those who would rather see Israel driven into the sea and destroyed............Doesn't hold any water with me, nor the truth................as the Jews have as much right to these lands as the arabs do........................


If that was true, then why are there over 100 UN resolutions saying the opposite?

If that was true, how come there isn't one country on the planet that has come out and stated as such?


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest? I thought it was Arab land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing hte issue, but that's okay, when you are arguing for continuing an attrocity, I can't expect much more.
> 
> So let's talk about why you are shitting your pants over the thought of Iran having a nuke. Not that they would ever use it.  But because it would put them on an equal footing with the Zionshits.
Click to expand...


I'd be much more impressed if you could spell the word "the".
*( hte)   *


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> You just keep looking more stupid kid.
> 
> I'd like to see where anybody ever claimed that ALL Muslims were "Radical"?
> 
> I won't hold my breath


You just said, _"...radical Islam is a "them"",_ dumbass.

Are you too pussy to own what you say?


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just keep looking more stupid kid.
> 
> I'd like to see where anybody ever claimed that ALL Muslims were "Radical"?
> 
> I won't hold my breath
> 
> 
> 
> You just said, _"...radical Islam is a "them"",_ dumbass.
> 
> Are you too pussy to own what you say?
Click to expand...


Radical Islam IS a them, show me where ANYBODY ever said ALL Muslims were/are Radicals.

C'mon kid.....do it.


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Radical Islam IS a them, show me where ANYBODY ever said ALL Muslims were/are Radicals.
> 
> C'mon kid.....do it.


Name one Muslim you don't consider a radical?


----------



## eagle1462010

Billo_Really said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same ole stealing land BS, as usual from those who would rather see Israel driven into the sea and destroyed............Doesn't hold any water with me, nor the truth................as the Jews have as much right to these lands as the arabs do........................
> 
> 
> 
> If that was true, then why are there over 100 UN resolutions saying the opposite?
> 
> If that was true, how come there isn't one country on the planet that has come out and stated as such?
Click to expand...

The anti propaganda campaign is working.  If you tell a lie enough times it becomes the facts...............

and at the same time their are 100's of UN resolutions condemning the other side of the equation at the same time.

Basically the UN is saying the opposing sides are BAD BOYS......and put it in writing condemning them both..............but of course you aren't interested in that side are you............

How the UN was perverted into a weapon against Israel New York Post


----------



## Antares

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Radical Islam IS a them, show me where ANYBODY ever said ALL Muslims were/are Radicals.
> 
> C'mon kid.....do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Muslim you don't consider a radical?
Click to expand...



Kid I've been to Israel, I've sat at the same table as Israeli's, Lebanese, Palestinians and Egyptians we've laughed had an amazing time and had some of the best Hummus I've ever tasted.

Experts estimate that 10-15% of Muslim's are radical.

You want a name, here's one.....*Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, *the Boi King hates this man (Al sisi) because he wants the Muslim Brotherhood to regain the power in Egypt.


----------



## ChrisL

I do believe most Muslims are radicals.  Perhaps not the ones who are American raised, but in the ME, yes, I believe they all have radical beliefs and feel they are above everyone else.  This is where the "dhimmitude" concept comes from.  If they are controlled by a secular government, then they can be kept in check.  If a Muslim run government controls things, then anyone who is not a Muslim is considered a second-class citizen.  

Thankfully, they could not establish a "caliphate" here in America because of our separation of church and state.  

Islam is NOT just a "religion" (if that's what you want to call it).  It is a way of life and encompasses politics and every other aspect of life.  These are people who pray SIX TIMES a day, stopping whatever it is they are doing in order to do so.  IF that is not the definition of "extremist" then I don't know what is.  Also, the reason why I most dislike this "religion" is because of how it tends to oppress women.  

Although the leftists and Islam sympathizers will come forth to say that they treat women "fairly."  I think we all know that's a bunch of bull crap.  Cripes, I've seen Muslim men here in the summertime dressed in shorts and a T-shirt while their women are dressed up in all kinds of robes and what not.  That is because they think women need to be covered up ALL the time.  Their bodies incite men to sinful behaviors, is what they believe.


----------



## ChrisL

Antares said:


> Billo_Really said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Radical Islam IS a them, show me where ANYBODY ever said ALL Muslims were/are Radicals.
> 
> C'mon kid.....do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Muslim you don't consider a radical?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kid I've been to Israel, I've sat at the same table as Israeli's, Lebanese, Palestinians and Egyptians we've laughed had an amazing time and had some of the best Hummus I've ever tasted.
> 
> Experts estimate that 10-15% of Muslim's are radical.
> 
> You want a name, here's one.....*Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, *the Boi Kings hates this man because he wants the Muslim Brotherhood to regain the power in Egypt.
Click to expand...


I knew a guy from Lebanon who worked at a local convenience store.  He was a very nice guy.  He used to give my son free stuff all the time.  I don't think he was a very "religious" man though.


----------



## ChrisL

I don't know if this has been posted already, but . . .  

Obama Let s Make a Deal Iran Leader Death to America FrontPage Magazine

These negotiations seem really promising. There’s no possible way that a system where “Death to America” is a given will ever use nuclear weapons against us.

While Obama chants, “Let’s make a deal” (any deal, no matter how bad), the Iranian regime has another message.

Just two days after President Barack Obama urged the Iranian people to take advantage of an “historic opportunity” to resolve the nuclear issue, an Iranian crowd on Saturday chanted “Death to America” – and the country’s Supreme Leader agreed.

Khamenei, who has the last word on all matters of state, reiterated in his speech that Tehran would not be pressured into giving in to Western demands in the negotiations with major powers.

A man in the audience shouted “Death to America”, to which the Supreme Leader responded, “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.”

The media is spinning the moment as Khamenei’s support for negotiations, which indeed he does support, because Obama is on track to give him what he wants, sanctions relief and nukes. The only ones the negotiations are working for are Iran’s Mullahs.


----------



## eagle1462010

Billo_Really said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> Radical Islam IS a them, show me where ANYBODY ever said ALL Muslims were/are Radicals.
> 
> C'mon kid.....do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Name one Muslim you don't consider a radical?
Click to expand...

Sissy and Egypt are openly fighting Radical Islam.
He has openly made speeches to Imam's in Egypt that it is Islam that must change and not anger the rest of the world with violence.........
He has outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood.
He has rebuilt or is rebuilding Christian Churches in Egypt.
He has destroyed over a 1000 supply tunnels for Hamas.
He has conducted military strikes in Libya in response to the beheadings of Coptic Christians who were Egyptians.
He ousted the leader who was a Muslim Brotherhood shrill.............who was calling for no diplomatic stance with Israel, Sharia law in Egypt..........and was leading to another possible open conflict with Israel.

Yes, he and the military overthrew the Gov't..........and they are better for it......unless you want more Christians killed for just being Christian............and another Egyptian versus Israel War.


----------



## eagle1462010

ChrisL said:


> I don't know if this has been posted already, but . . .
> 
> Obama Let s Make a Deal Iran Leader Death to America FrontPage Magazine
> 
> These negotiations seem really promising. There’s no possible way that a system where “Death to America” is a given will ever use nuclear weapons against us.
> 
> While Obama chants, “Let’s make a deal” (any deal, no matter how bad), the Iranian regime has another message.
> 
> Just two days after President Barack Obama urged the Iranian people to take advantage of an “historic opportunity” to resolve the nuclear issue, an Iranian crowd on Saturday chanted “Death to America” – and the country’s Supreme Leader agreed.
> 
> Khamenei, who has the last word on all matters of state, reiterated in his speech that Tehran would not be pressured into giving in to Western demands in the negotiations with major powers.
> 
> A man in the audience shouted “Death to America”, to which the Supreme Leader responded, “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.”
> 
> The media is spinning the moment as Khamenei’s support for negotiations, which indeed he does support, because Obama is on track to give him what he wants, sanctions relief and nukes. The only ones the negotiations are working for are Iran’s Mullahs.



2014 version........haven't found the new chant again......posted it on another thread.........


----------



## Antares

On a side note, one night in Vegas at a Blackjack Table I had the good fortune of being at the table with two Israeli Soldiers.

Both of them openly admitted feeling terrible for  the Palestinian people because of what Hamas was doing to them.


----------



## ChrisL

eagle1462010 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this has been posted already, but . . .
> 
> Obama Let s Make a Deal Iran Leader Death to America FrontPage Magazine
> 
> These negotiations seem really promising. There’s no possible way that a system where “Death to America” is a given will ever use nuclear weapons against us.
> 
> While Obama chants, “Let’s make a deal” (any deal, no matter how bad), the Iranian regime has another message.
> 
> Just two days after President Barack Obama urged the Iranian people to take advantage of an “historic opportunity” to resolve the nuclear issue, an Iranian crowd on Saturday chanted “Death to America” – and the country’s Supreme Leader agreed.
> 
> Khamenei, who has the last word on all matters of state, reiterated in his speech that Tehran would not be pressured into giving in to Western demands in the negotiations with major powers.
> 
> A man in the audience shouted “Death to America”, to which the Supreme Leader responded, “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure.”
> 
> The media is spinning the moment as Khamenei’s support for negotiations, which indeed he does support, because Obama is on track to give him what he wants, sanctions relief and nukes. The only ones the negotiations are working for are Iran’s Mullahs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2014 version........haven't found the new chant again......posted it on another thread.........
Click to expand...


And liberals think it is a GOOD idea to make a deal over nukes with these nuts???  Unreal.  Sometimes I wonder if the world has gone insane.  What is WRONG with them?  Something is wrong with them, that's for sure.  Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

The man I knew (well, barely knew I should say), had told me that he loved America and hated Lebanon.  He was very grateful to be living here, and he wanted everyone to call him "Joe."  Even though I suspect that wasn't his real name.  Lol.  He liked everything about America.


----------



## MaryAnne

JoeB131 said:


> MaryAnne said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the man who was there when the Armistace was signed was most certainly in your so called Halls of power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be more impressed if you could spell Armistice.
Click to expand...


 I have IPad spell Check, but that does not change my facts.

I also know History has been changed many times since 1945.

I am not here to impress you.


----------



## MaryAnne

Antares said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest? I thought it was Arab land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing hte issue, but that's okay, when you are arguing for continuing an attrocity, I can't expect much more.
> 
> So let's talk about why you are shitting your pants over the thought of Iran having a nuke. Not that they would ever use it.  But because it would put them on an equal footing with the Zionshits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be much more impressed if you could spell the word "the".
> *( hte)   *
Click to expand...


I missed that but am more than willing to over look mistakes Since I am inclined to make them


----------



## Antares

MaryAnne said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest? I thought it was Arab land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing hte issue, but that's okay, when you are arguing for continuing an attrocity, I can't expect much more.
> 
> So let's talk about why you are shitting your pants over the thought of Iran having a nuke. Not that they would ever use it.  But because it would put them on an equal footing with the Zionshits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be much more impressed if you could spell the word "the".
> *( hte)   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed that but am more than willing to over look mistakes Since I am inclined to make them
Click to expand...


I know, but Joe is a prick and deserves to get called out on everything


----------



## MaryAnne

Antares said:


> MaryAnne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest? I thought it was Arab land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing hte issue, but that's okay, when you are arguing for continuing an attrocity, I can't expect much more.
> 
> So let's talk about why you are shitting your pants over the thought of Iran having a nuke. Not that they would ever use it.  But because it would put them on an equal footing with the Zionshits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd be much more impressed if you could spell the word "the".
> *( hte)   *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed that but am more than willing to over look mistakes Since I am inclined to make them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know, but Joe is a prick and deserves to get called out on everything
Click to expand...


I think I did catch that right away.


----------



## eagle1462010

Khamenei.ir - Supreme Leader s Speech in Meeting with Participants of International Congress on Takfirism

25/11/2014_The following is the full text of the speech delivered on November 25, 2014 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with participants of the International Congress on "Extremist and Takfiri Orientations from the Viewpoint of Islamic Scholars"._



Sometimes, a number of those youth whose requests are not granted in this regard write a letter to me and say in an insistent manner, "Allow us to go and fight against the Zionist regime in the front lines".* Our people love fighting against the Zionists and the Islamic Republic has proved this as well.* By Allah's favor and grace, we have passed through the barrier of denominational discord. *We helped Hezbollah of Lebanon* - which is a Shia group - in the same way that *we helped Hamas and Islamic Jihad and we will continue to do that *[audience shout "Allahu Akbar"]. We did not become a prisoner of denominational limits. We did not differentiate between Shia, Sunni, Hanafi, Hanbali, Shafi'i and Zaidi denominations. *All Palestinian areas have to become armed.*

We looked at our main goal and we offered help. We managed to strengthen the fists of our Palestinian brothers in Gaza and by Allah's favor, we will continue to do that. I announced- and this will definitely happen- that the West Bank should be armed like Gaza and be prepared for defense [audience shout "Allahu Akbar"].

I will tell you dear brothers that* America's splendor should not intimidate you*. *The enemy has become weak.* The enemy of Islam - which is arrogance - is weaker now compared to all other eras during the past 100, 150 years. Take a look at colonialist governments in Europe. They are faced with economic, political and security problems. Today, these governments have all sorts of problems. America is worse than them. It is faced with moral, political and serious financial and monetary problems. It is faced with disgrace and damage to its superpower status everywhere in the world, not just in the world of Islam.

Besides*, the Zionist regime has become weaker compared to the past*. This is the same regime which used to chant the slogan of "from Nile to Euphrates". They used to shout and say openly that the region from Nile to Euphrates belongs to them. However, *they could not conquer Palestinian tunnels in Gaza for 50 days. *This is the same regime. *They used all their power for 50 days so that they can sabotage, destroy and conquer the underground tunnels of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Palestinians, but they failed.* This is the same regime which used to say, "The region from Nile to Euphrates belongs to us". Notice how it has changed. Notice how weak it has become.

*The problems of the enemies of Islam are many. The enemies of Islam were frustrated in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. They were frustrated in different areas and their goals were not achieved. As you saw, in order to confront the Islamic Republic on the nuclear issue, America and colonialist countries in Europe gathered and used all their power so that they could bring the Islamic Republic to its knees on this matter, but they failed and they will continue to fail [audience shout "Allahu Akbar"].*

This is the weakness of the other side. But by Allah's favor, you will become stronger on a daily basis. The future belongs to you and "Allah has full power and control over His affairs" [The Holy Quran, 12: 21] [audience shout "Allahu Akbar"].


----------



## eagle1462010

They openly admit they are supporting known Terrorist Organizations.

They are proud of it.  And promise to continue to support it.

They openly ditch the Nuclear talks...............a sign of weakness...............

They openly call us the enemy..........and promise to continue to fight..........

You don't negotiate with this.


----------



## Lakhota




----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest? I thought it was Arab land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing hte issue, but that's okay, when you are arguing for continuing an attrocity, I can't expect much more.
> 
> So let's talk about why you are shitting your pants over the thought of Iran having a nuke. Not that they would ever use it.  But because it would put them on an equal footing with the Zionshits.
Click to expand...

Joey as faith in the mullahs but he thinks Christians and Jews are nuts


----------



## ChrisL

Jroc said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> So it's Iran's land Now? are we going back tot the Persian conquest? I thought it was Arab land?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are confusing hte issue, but that's okay, when you are arguing for continuing an attrocity, I can't expect much more.
> 
> So let's talk about why you are shitting your pants over the thought of Iran having a nuke. Not that they would ever use it.  But because it would put them on an equal footing with the Zionshits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joey as faith in the mullahs but he thinks Christians and Jews are nuts
Click to expand...


I think most religious people, regardless of their respective religions, are a little nuts, sorry to say.  They ALL want to push their beliefs on everyone.


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> I'd be much more impressed if you could spell the word "the".



no, that's a typo. THat mutant that claimed that we needed to drop a nuke on Japanese women and children insisted her relatives had something to do with the "armatace"... 

But that's okay, I realize you are a sad troll with no friends, and this as close to human interaction as you can probably get.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> Joey as faith in the mullahs but he thinks Christians and Jews are nuts



I think anyone who believes in a magic fairy in the sky is nuts.  

But here's the thing. If Muslims tried to set up their own state in France, I'd expect the Christians to do something about that, too.  

You steal someone's land, you should not be all that surprised if THEY TRY TO KILL YOU.  

And you shouldn't come whining to me when they do.


----------



## JoeB131

MaryAnne said:


> I have IPad spell Check, but that does not change my facts.
> 
> I also know History has been changed many times since 1945.
> 
> I am not here to impress you.



History hasn't been changed, it has just been interpreted better. 

When we dropped the bomb, we probably just thought of it as another weapon.  If you read Truman's diaries, even he thought the USSR getting into the Pacific War would be the game-changer, not the atom bomb. 

AFTER we and the Soviets started making more bombs, bigger bombs, people started talking about using atom bombs to resolve Korea... then Truman felt the need to rationalize why he had used them on people in the first place.  That's when you started getting the whole "Expected half a million casualties" if we had to invade Japan horseshit. (The Army's own plans for Operation Olympic only estimated 10,000.)  

There was also the World War II Generation and its period of political dominance after the war that needed the mythology that America had won WWII, when in fact, most of the real heavy lifting had been done by the British Empire (mostly Indians and Pakistanis), Soviets and Chinese. 

Meanwhile, REAL historians were doing the hard work of actually looking at Japanese documents and determining what the real state of mind was of the Japanese leaders, and lo and behold, the Bombs didn't have much of an effect, but when they saw the Soviets had opened a whole new case of whoopass on them, they were ready to give in.


----------



## JoeB131

eagle1462010 said:


> They openly admit they are supporting known Terrorist Organizations.
> 
> They are proud of it. And promise to continue to support it.
> 
> They openly ditch the Nuclear talks...............a sign of weakness...............
> 
> They openly call us the enemy..........and promise to continue to fight..........
> 
> You don't negotiate with this.



again, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. 

since we don't have the capability to fight a war to stop them, negotiation is probably in order.


----------



## Jroc

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey as faith in the mullahs but he thinks Christians and Jews are nuts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think anyone who believes in a magic fairy in the sky is nuts.
> 
> But here's the thing. If Muslims tried to set up their own state in France, I'd expect the Christians to do something about that, too.
> 
> You steal someone's land, you should not be all that surprised if THEY TRY TO KILL YOU.
> 
> And you shouldn't come whining to me when they do.
Click to expand...



Seem like you're the one whining about Jews. Is it Sunni or Shiite land? or does it matter as long as the Jews are dead? Is islam your favorite religion because they want dead Jews?


----------



## MaryAnne

JoeB131 said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd be much more impressed if you could spell the word "the".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no, that's a typo. THat mutant that claimed that we needed to drop a nuke on Japanese women and children insisted her relatives had something to do with the "armatace"...
> 
> But that's okay, I realize you are a sad troll with no friends, and this as close to human interaction as you can probably get.
Click to expand...

 
If you could read you would know I did not say anything close to that. I said," My relatives served in WW2." My Husband on Normandy Beach, second wave,Omaha. Where he was wounded. My Dad was an Engineer.

I did say," I knew a person who was there to sign when Hirohito signed and ended the war."

You must really be an angry person to get all bent out of shape over a word. Good manners do not seem to be your forte to a new Poster, but that is fine.

If there is an ignore button on this board feel free to insert my name.

To me,you are not worth an ignore button


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey as faith in the mullahs but he thinks Christians and Jews are nuts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think anyone who believes in a magic fairy in the sky is nuts.
> 
> But here's the thing. If Muslims tried to set up their own state in France, I'd expect the Christians to do something about that, too.
> 
> You steal someone's land, you should not be all that surprised if THEY TRY TO KILL YOU.
> 
> And you shouldn't come whining to me when they do.
Click to expand...

true. Iranians & U.S. Republicans


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joey as faith in the mullahs but he thinks Christians and Jews are nuts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think anyone who believes in a magic fairy in the sky is nuts.
> 
> But here's the thing. If Muslims tried to set up their own state in France, I'd expect the Christians to do something about that, too.
> 
> You steal someone's land, you should not be all that surprised if THEY TRY TO KILL YOU.
> 
> And you shouldn't come whining to me when they do.
Click to expand...


Oh, so if someone tries to steal something from me, that gives me the RIGHT to try to kill them?  Interesting.


----------



## JoeB131

Jroc said:


> Seem like you're the one whining about Jews. Is it Sunni or Shiite land? or does it matter as long as the Jews are dead? Is islam your favorite religion because they want dead Jews?



Naw, my favorite religion is the worship of Dread C'Thulhu.... because if you are going to follow made up bullshit, might as well be fun made up bullshit.  

You guys don't want to be killed. Go Back to Europe where you came from. They're really sorry about the last time.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Oh, so if someone tries to steal something from me, that gives me the RIGHT to try to kill them? Interesting.



If there is no other remedy in law...


----------



## JoeB131

MaryAnne said:


> If you could read you would know I did not say anything close to that. I said," My relatives served in WW2." My Husband on Normandy Beach, second wave,Omaha. Where he was wounded. My Dad was an Engineer.
> 
> I did say," I knew a person who was there to sign when Hirohito signed and ended the war."
> 
> You must really be an angry person to get all bent out of shape over a word. Good manners do not seem to be your forte to a new Poster, but that is fine.
> 
> If there is an ignore button on this board feel free to insert my name.
> 
> To me,you are not worth an ignore button



Well, I haven't determined yet if you are really a new poster or just another sock.  

Yes, I get bent out of shape when people think that OUR use of nukes against defenseless women in children was somehow okay, but you guys don't want certain countries to have them because they MIGHT use them against women and children.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> MaryAnne said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you could read you would know I did not say anything close to that. I said," My relatives served in WW2." My Husband on Normandy Beach, second wave,Omaha. Where he was wounded. My Dad was an Engineer.
> 
> I did say," I knew a person who was there to sign when Hirohito signed and ended the war."
> 
> You must really be an angry person to get all bent out of shape over a word. Good manners do not seem to be your forte to a new Poster, but that is fine.
> 
> If there is an ignore button on this board feel free to insert my name.
> 
> To me,you are not worth an ignore button
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I haven't determined yet if you are really a new poster or just another sock.
> 
> Yes, I get bent out of shape when people think that OUR use of nukes against defenseless women in children was somehow okay, but you guys don't want certain countries to have them because they MIGHT use them against women and children.
Click to expand...

Our women and children vs someone elses women and children. Whose side are you on anyhow?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so if someone tries to steal something from me, that gives me the RIGHT to try to kill them? Interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If there is no other remedy in law...
Click to expand...


You . . . who is against citizens having guns for self defense.  Do you see your own hypocrisy?


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Our women and children vs someone elses women and children. Whose side are you on anyhow?



Japan wasn't in a position to drop anything on our women and children at that point. 

The Iranians, on the other hand, even if they get a bomb, won't have the capability to drop it on us. They might drop it on the Zionshits, (aw, that'd be tragic) but then they'd risk a massive retaliation, so they probably won't.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> You . . . who is against citizens having guns for self defense. Do you see your own hypocrisy?



No, because most of you aren't shooting people because they are taking something like land. 

You're shooting people because they happen to be the wrong color in your hood.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> You . . . who is against citizens having guns for self defense. Do you see your own hypocrisy?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because most of you aren't shooting people because they are taking something like land.
> 
> You're shooting people because they happen to be the wrong color in your hood.
Click to expand...


Duh.  You sound so uneducated.  I don't live in the "hood."  I also live in Massachusetts (not may "colored" people around here).  Also I've never shot anyone and I don't own a gun.  See?  As usual, you sound like an idiot.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Duh. You sound so uneducated. I don't live in the "hood." I also live in Massachusetts (not may "colored" people around here). Also I've never shot anyone and I don't own a gun. See? As usual, you sound like an idiot.



actually, you still sound like a typical gun nut...  Why do I waste time talking to you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11022936 





ChrisL said:


> I do believe most Muslims are radicals. Perhaps not the ones who are American raised, but in the ME, yes, I believe they all have radical beliefs and feel they are above everyone else



So you have mellowed out your hatred of Muslims to exclude American-raised enablers of radical Islam. Or are they all "enablers" still?

ChrL 11013323 





ChrisL said:


> That is why I said "I hate Islam." I can't hate a person I do not know any more than I can care about them.



How do you label millions of human beings as "radicals" in the ME if you don't know them any more than you care about them?

How can American Muslims not be enablers of radical Islam when that is why you hate Islam?

How can you not hate every human being that practices the religion you hate? A religion cannot do anything that would possibly cause you to hate it if there are no human beings around to adhere to it.

There would be no religion of Islam if no human being practiced it. So when you hate the religion you by default hate all the people that give it life.

You hate human beings without knowing anything about them.

So why not admit that you are a xenophobic bigot dedicated to fear mongering about millions of good people who practice Islam?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11022936
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do believe most Muslims are radicals. Perhaps not the ones who are American raised, but in the ME, yes, I believe they all have radical beliefs and feel they are above everyone else
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you have mellowed out your hatred of Muslims to exclude American-raised enablers of radical Islam. Or are they all "enablers" still?
> 
> ChrL 11013323
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is why I said "I hate Islam." I can't hate a person I do not know any more than I can care about them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you label miiion human beings "radicals" in the ME if you don't know them any more than you care about them?
> 
> How can American Muslims not be enablers of radical Islam when that is why you hate Islam?
> 
> How can you not hate every human being that practices the  religion you hate. A religion cannot do anything that would possibly cause you to hate it if there are no human beings to adhere to it?
> 
> There would no religion of Islam if no human being practiced it. So when you hate the religion you by default hate   All the people that give it life.
> 
> You hate human beings without knowing anything about them,
> 
> So why not admit that you are a xenophobic bigot dedicated to fear mongering about millions of good people who practice Islam?
Click to expand...


It's not a religion, it is a hateful cult that oppresses women.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11039356 





ChrisL said:


> It's not a religion, it is a hateful cult that oppresses women



But you hate those women because they all enable radical Islam. Now you are making less sense than ever. You hate islamic women because they belong to a 'cult'  that oppresses them.


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11039356
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a religion, it is a hateful cult that oppresses women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you hate those women because they all enable radical Islam. Now you are making less sense than ever. You hate islamic women because they belong to a 'cult'  that oppresses them.
Click to expand...


As I told you already, I hate the ideology of Islam.


----------



## ChrisL

I cannot "hate" people I don't even know any more than I can like them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrL 11039356
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a religion, it is a hateful cult that oppresses women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you hate those women because they all enable radical Islam. Now you are making less sense than ever. You hate islamic women because they belong to a 'cult'  that oppresses them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I told you already, I hate the ideology of Islam.
Click to expand...


But who gives the ideology life? You can't dance around the fact that if you hate the the ideology of Islam it means you hate everone that practice Islam on their daily live or proclaim adherence to it.

You cannot separate an ideology from  the human beings who bring an ideology to into being.

You should hate members of Daesh
or al Qaeds and all  murderers such as theyb are but not those who peacefully practice Islam.

Your mind is warped by generaluzed and xenophobic generalized hatred but you want to be sweet and kind to those that practice a non-murderous form of Islam.


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ChrL 11039356
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a religion, it is a hateful cult that oppresses women
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you hate those women because they all enable radical Islam. Now you are making less sense than ever. You hate islamic women because they belong to a 'cult'  that oppresses them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I told you already, I hate the ideology of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But who gives the ideology life? You can't dance around the fact that if you hate the the ideology of Islam it means you hate everone that practice Islam on their daily live or proclaim adherence to it.
> 
> You cannot separate an ideology from  the human beings who bring an ideology to into being.
> 
> You should hate members of Daesh
> or al Qaeds and all  murderers such as theyb are but not those who peacefully practice Islam.
> 
> Your mind is warped by generaluzed and xenophobic generalized hatred but you want to be sweet and kind to those that practice a non-murderous form of Islam.
Click to expand...

You are so full of shit.
You can hate the conservative movement without hating individual Republicans.
You can hate Liberal ideology, without hating individual Democrats.
and you can hate Islam without hating individual brain washed Islamist practitioners. In fact I feel pity for Islamic women who are hard assed Islamists.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11041959 





Slyhunter said:


> You are so full of shit.
> You can hate the conservative movement without hating individual Republicans.



I don't hate the conservative movement. There is no need to hate  any major political force in America. I mostly disagree with the religious right and their major influence on the Republican Party for the past several decades. That's because personally I am not religious on any way. But I am happy for all those who are. And that includes all those of Islamic faith and any faith that act according to universal human rights and civilized standards of laws. I certainly don't agree with the negative treatment of women. Harming women is not civilized. But that is part of the custom of that particular religion - that has been overcome in many places. That is why I belong to no religion. If there is a creator I'm sure he gave me a mind to use  for for figuring out right from and doing some good over during whatever time I have on this beautiful earth. And generalized hatred of religions and political groups and foul/mouthed posters have nothing to do with goodness on earth. Hating the actual scum like Daesh is acceptable - I cheer all those who are killing them - as many Muslims are doing right now.

So why hate those you don't know like ChrisL does?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11041959
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of shit.
> You can hate the conservative movement without hating individual Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't hate the conservative movement. There is no need to hate  any major political force in America. I mostly disagree with the religious right and their major influence on the Republican Party for the past several decades. That's because personally I am not religious on any way. But I am happy for all those who are. And that includes all those of Islamic faith and any faith that act according to universal human rights and civilized standards of laws. I certainly don't agree with the negative treatment of women. Harming women is not civilized. But that is part of the custom of that particular religion - that has been overcome in many places. That is why I belong to no religion. If there is a creator I'm sure he gave me a mind to use  for for figuring out right from and doing some good over during whatever time I have on this beautiful earth. And generalized hatred of religions and political groups and foul/mouthed posters have nothing to do with goodness on earth. Hating the actual scum like Daesh is acceptable - I cheer all those who are killing them - as many Muslims are doing right now.
> 
> So why hate those you don't know like ChrisL does?
Click to expand...


You sure are an idiot.  You cannot even understand a simple concept.  You are full of it too.  I can go track down your hateful posts.  Shall I?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL said:


> I can go track down your hateful posts. Shall I?



Go for it?


----------



## ChrisL

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can go track down your hateful posts. Shall I?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go for it?
Click to expand...


I will.  Don't you worry.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrL 11049254 





ChrisL said:


> I will. Don't you worry



Can't find any can you. Hating people just because of their religion or political leaning is quite stupid. Why do you hate so many people including those you don't know?


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> ChrL 11049254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will. Don't you worry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't find any can you. Hating people just because of their religion or political leaning is quite stupid. Why do you hate so many people including those you don't know?
Click to expand...

Hating people because they cut off your head if you don't switch to their religion, stone homo's and independant women, is not stupid.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Hating people because they cut off your head if you don't switch to their religion, stone homo's and independant women, is not stupid.



and how much is that actually happening?


----------



## Ernie S.

A whole lot more than I'd like.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> A whole lot more than I'd like.



Okay, fair enough. There's a lot of customs going on in that part of the world that we consider barbaric.  

They are also - not our problem.


----------



## Ernie S.

Their customs are our problem when our citizens lose their heads because of them.


----------



## Slyhunter

9/11


----------



## Slyhunter

Not to mention we pay them for their gas. We need to drill for oil here so we stop sending terrorists money.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ernie S. said:


> Their customs are our problem when our citizens lose their heads because of them.


Were you outraged when one of our citizens lost his head on the Mavi Marmara?


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Their customs are our problem when our citizens lose their heads because of them.



You mean our citizens who ignored a shitload of warnings about how dangerous it was over htere and went over there anyway?


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their customs are our problem when our citizens lose their heads because of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean our citizens who ignored a shitload of warnings about how dangerous it was over htere and went over there anyway?
Click to expand...

Yes... soldiers and journalists. They were doing their jobs


----------



## Ernie S.

Billo_Really said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their customs are our problem when our citizens lose their heads because of them.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you outraged when one of our citizens lost his head on the Mavi Marmara?
Click to expand...

Beheading on the Mavi Marmara? Where? When? nothing I see on the boarding of Mavi Marmara mentions beheading, of course, I haven't seen autopsy photos. Have you?


----------



## Antares

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot more than I'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, fair enough. There's a lot of customs going on in that part of the world that we consider barbaric.
> 
> They are also - not our problem.
Click to expand...


Actually they kind of are our problem, we have a Presidential Candidate who claims to be representing all women in her quest to break "ALL" glass ceilings and shit taking money from people that believe women are cattle.

If you don't think that's going to cause her problems you aren't real bright.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot more than I'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, fair enough. There's a lot of customs going on in that part of the world that we consider barbaric.
> 
> They are also - not our problem.
Click to expand...


That's a "custom?"


----------



## Antares

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot more than I'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, fair enough. There's a lot of customs going on in that part of the world that we consider barbaric.
> 
> They are also - not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a "custom?"
Click to expand...


Hi pretty lady.


----------



## ChrisL

Antares said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole lot more than I'd like.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, fair enough. There's a lot of customs going on in that part of the world that we consider barbaric.
> 
> They are also - not our problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a "custom?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi pretty lady.
Click to expand...


Hi there!


----------



## Billo_Really

Ernie S. said:


> Beheading on the Mavi Marmara? Where? When? nothing I see on the boarding of Mavi Marmara mentions beheading, of course, I haven't seen autopsy photos. Have you?


What do you think happens to a person, when they're shot in the back of the head, execution style, at close range, with an assault rifle?


----------



## Ernie S.

Have you ever fired a 5.56x45 assault weapon at the back of someone or something's head?

No? Then you don't know, do you? I've actually seen what a head shot looks like. There is no decapitation.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Yes... soldiers and journalists. They were doing their jobs



Uh, ISIL hasn't beheaded American Soldiers doing their jobs.  As for journalists- again- you go over there at your own risk.  

The one guy who went over there got kidnapped, his family paid millions to get him back, and he went right back over and got beheaded.  

Why is this my problem again?


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Actually they kind of are our problem, we have a Presidential Candidate who claims to be representing all women in her quest to break "ALL" glass ceilings and shit taking money from people that believe women are cattle.
> 
> If you don't think that's going to cause her problems you aren't real bright.



Guy, I've been watching the Right Wing thinking, "Boy, we Got the Clintons this time!!!" and coming up short every time.  

The reality- you guys are going to nominate Bush, people are going to remember, "Oh, yeah, the Bushes. They fuck everything up!" and then you'll spend 8 years sputtering while Hillary is President.


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> Have you ever fired a 5.56x45 assault weapon at the back of someone or something's head?
> 
> No? Then you don't know, do you? I've actually seen what a head shot looks like. There is no decapitation.



Oh, Ernie and his gun porn.  It's so cute.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

I did not say that hating those who behead innocent people is stupid. Thinking that I said such an absurd statement is being really stupid:

Slyh 11054826 





Slyhunter said:


> Hating people because they cut off your head if you don't switch to their religion, stone homo's and independant women, is not stupid.



Here is what I wrote is "stupid"...  NF 11054253 





NotfooledbyW said:


> _*Hating people just because of their religion or political l*__*eaning is quite stupid.*_



That goes for Muslims who hate people of non-Muslim faith or no faith at all.

So not being able to read and comprehend what I wrote (if you are older than 8 years of age) is being really stupid.

It is also stupid to not understand what universal human rights and civilized standards of law are. It is very stupid to not realize,that cutting off someone's head and stoning homosexuals is not civilized behavior. This is what I wrote:  NF 11047391 





NotfooledbyW said:


> . I certainly don't agree with the negative treatment of women*. Harming women is not civilized.* ....



It is fully stupid to post something like this  ..... Slyh 11054826 





Slyhunter said:


> Hating people because they cut off your head,  stone homo's and independant women, *is not stupid*.


..... When I clearly wrote .... NF 11047391 





NotfooledbyW said:


> *Hating the actual scum like Daesh is acceptable *- I cheer all those who are killing them - as many Muslims are doing right now.



That is why I don't hate conservatives. They are not literate enough to carry on an intelligent discussion about anything.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ernie S. said:


> Have you ever fired a 5.56x45 assault weapon at the back of someone or something's head?
> 
> No? Then you don't know, do you? I've actually seen what a head shot looks like. There is no decapitation.


It doesn't matter, asshole, dead is dead!

Now I'm going to ask you again, you fuckin' pussy, were you outraged over an American citizen being executed on the Mavi Marmara by IDF commando's?


----------



## Billo_Really

Antares said:


> Hi pretty lady.


Hey, don't fish in my pond!


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> I did not say that hating those who behead innocent people is stupid. Thinking that I said such an absurd statement is being really stupid:
> 
> Slyh 11054826
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hating people because they cut off your head if you don't switch to their religion, stone homo's and independant women, is not stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what I wrote is "stupid"...  NF 11054253
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*Hating people just because of their religion or political l*__*eaning is quite stupid.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That goes for Muslims who hate people of non-Muslim faith or no faith at all.
> 
> So not being able to read and comprehend what I wrote (if you are older than 8 years of age) is being really stupid.
> 
> It is also stupid to not understand what universal human rights and civilized standards of law are. It is very stupid to not realize,that cutting off someone's head and stoning homosexuals is not civilized behavior. This is what I wrote:  NF 11047391
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I certainly don't agree with the negative treatment of women*. Harming women is not civilized.* ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is fully stupid to post something like this  ..... Slyh 11054826
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hating people because they cut off your head,  stone homo's and independant women, *is not stupid*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..... When I clearly wrote .... NF 11047391
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Hating the actual scum like Daesh is acceptable *- I cheer all those who are killing them - as many Muslims are doing right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why I don't hate conservatives. They are not literate enough to carry on an intelligent discussion about anything.
Click to expand...

You're too stupid to realize that "we" hate Muslims because of what they do, not because of who they worship. Because they use terroristic and barbaristic tactics to force others to worship their God. And it's their religion that makes them do these things so yes we hate their religion too.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... soldiers and journalists. They were doing their jobs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, ISIL hasn't beheaded American Soldiers doing their jobs.  As for journalists- again- you go over there at your own risk.
> 
> The one guy who went over there got kidnapped, his family paid millions to get him back, and he went right back over and got beheaded.
> 
> Why is this my problem again?
Click to expand...

It's not your problem. It's the whole damned world's problem.
Look Joe! Iran has vowed to turn its enemies into ashes and POTUS wants them to be able to enrich uranium in underground bunkers. If you can't see the stupidity in his thought process, there's no point in further discussion.


----------



## ChrisL

Ernie S. said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... soldiers and journalists. They were doing their jobs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, ISIL hasn't beheaded American Soldiers doing their jobs.  As for journalists- again- you go over there at your own risk.
> 
> The one guy who went over there got kidnapped, his family paid millions to get him back, and he went right back over and got beheaded.
> 
> Why is this my problem again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not your problem. It's the whole damned world's problem.
> Look Joe! Iran has vowed to turn its enemies into ashes and POTUS wants them to be able to enrich uranium in underground bunkers. If you can't see the stupidity in his thought process, there's no point in further discussion.
Click to expand...


Oh no, just because THEY say it, doesn't mean it's true.   

That was sarcasm of course.


----------



## Ernie S.

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever fired a 5.56x45 assault weapon at the back of someone or something's head?
> 
> No? Then you don't know, do you? I've actually seen what a head shot looks like. There is no decapitation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, Ernie and his gun porn.  It's so cute.
Click to expand...

Idiot thinks a 5.56x45 will decapitate someone....

But yes, I like gun porn.
Here's my latest acquisition:


----------



## Ernie S.

Billo_Really said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever fired a 5.56x45 assault weapon at the back of someone or something's head?
> 
> No? Then you don't know, do you? I've actually seen what a head shot looks like. There is no decapitation.
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter, asshole, dead is dead!
> 
> Now I'm going to ask you again, you fuckin' pussy, were you outraged over an American citizen being executed on the Mavi Marmara by IDF commando's?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## Dot Com

Repubs war on America continues unabated


----------



## JoeB131

Ernie S. said:


> It's not your problem. It's the whole damned world's problem.
> Look Joe! Iran has vowed to turn its enemies into ashes and POTUS wants them to be able to enrich uranium in underground bunkers. If you can't see the stupidity in his thought process, there's no point in further discussion.



Guy, I'm not going to poop my pants over Iran because you are falling for Zionist propaganda. 

Reality is, Iran having a bomb won't make any difference.  they won't us it as long as all their enemies have them as well.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not your problem. It's the whole damned world's problem.
> Look Joe! Iran has vowed to turn its enemies into ashes and POTUS wants them to be able to enrich uranium in underground bunkers. If you can't see the stupidity in his thought process, there's no point in further discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guy, I'm not going to poop my pants over Iran because you are falling for Zionist propaganda.
> 
> Reality is, Iran having a bomb won't make any difference.  they won't us it as long as all their enemies have them as well.
Click to expand...

They think the 13th Imam will protect them from retaliation.


----------



## Billo_Really

Ernie S. said:


> No.


Thank you for answering.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> They think the 13th Imam will protect them from retaliation.



 I love when you lecture us on religions you don't understand...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11063821. 





Slyhunter said:


> They think the 13th Imam will protect them from retaliation.



Jesus is the 2nd most revered prophet in Islam - So Iran doesn't have a chance against ISIS if Jesus is the one who will save ISIS at the end of the world.



> .   After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, _*Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory. *_


. What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic

Does anyone really expect a US Administration to figure out and deal with all this nut job Armageddon religious crap? No sane modern government can be expected to have a ready military plan to deal with insane ancient religious murderous goons.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think the 13th Imam will protect them from retaliation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love when you lecture us on religions you don't understand...
Click to expand...

My mistake, 12th Imam.

The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today



> Iran, was a Twelver. So is the current supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
> 
> Twelvers -- not other Shiites or Sunni Muslims -- believe that al-Mahdi will return as a messiah with Jesus to bring peace to the world and establish Islam as the ruling faith across the globe.
> 
> The apocalyptic catch? The Mahdi is expected to appear when the world is wracked in utter chaos and war. Many Sunnis also believe that the Mahdi will come in such a judgment-day scenario, but believe that he has not been born yet.
> 
> The Twelver beliefs have raised concern in conjunction with Iran's steeped interest in furiously pressing
> 
> 
> forward with its nuclear program, combined with threats against Israel and the West. Critics of the Islamic Republic allege that Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader would even go so far as to hasten a nuclear showdown and cataclysmic strike -- perhaps an attack on Israel and inevitable retaliation -- to hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam. Ahmadinejad has even called for the reappearance of the 12th Imam from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly. During his speeches within Iran, Ahmadinejad has said that the main mission of the Islamic Revolution is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> My mistake, 12th Imam.



Yes, your ignorance of Islam is duly noted.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, 12th Imam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of Islam is duly noted.
Click to expand...

I understand that after Iran causes chaos and destruction the 12th imam is supposedly supposed to make everything better for them.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> I understand that after Iran causes chaos and destruction the 12th imam is supposedly supposed to make everything better for them.



How is that any less crazy than all you Christians who believe in "The Second Coming of Jesus", which will also be accompanied by a lot of chaos and destruction?  





*Pictured: Some Crazy Shit Right there.*


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that after Iran causes chaos and destruction the 12th imam is supposedly supposed to make everything better for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any less crazy than all you Christians who believe in "The Second Coming of Jesus", which will also be accompanied by a lot of chaos and destruction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pictured: Some Crazy Shit Right there.*
Click to expand...


Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil."  Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, 12th Imam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of Islam is duly noted.
Click to expand...


It's a known fact that the Iranians believe in a 12th Imam.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that after Iran causes chaos and destruction the 12th imam is supposedly supposed to make everything better for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any less crazy than all you Christians who believe in "The Second Coming of Jesus", which will also be accompanied by a lot of chaos and destruction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pictured: Some Crazy Shit Right there.*
Click to expand...

I'm not a christian.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil." Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.



Jesus didn't have any wonderful teachings.  Really, the teachings in the NT are kind of fucked up. Especially the Book of Revelations... all kinds of crazy shit in there. 

We don't have a problem with Islam because their belief in Sky Pixies is somehow worse than Western beliefs in Sky Pixies. 

We have a problem with them because we've stolen their land, bombed their countries, and exploited their resources.  

That's why we have a problem.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, 12th Imam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of Islam is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a known fact that the Iranians believe in a 12th Imam.
Click to expand...


It's a known fact that MANY Americans believe there will be a second coming of Jesus.  

Which is really hard, because there wasn't a first coming of Jesus.  That fucker never existed.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil." Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't have any wonderful teachings.  Really, the teachings in the NT are kind of fucked up. Especially the Book of Revelations... all kinds of crazy shit in there.
> 
> We don't have a problem with Islam because their belief in Sky Pixies is somehow worse than Western beliefs in Sky Pixies.
> 
> We have a problem with them because we've stolen their land, bombed their countries, and exploited their resources.
> 
> That's why we have a problem.
Click to expand...

no, we have a problem with them because they love death more than life and have no problem killing or dieing to achieve their ends, the creation of a caliphate.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil." Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't have any wonderful teachings.  Really, the teachings in the NT are kind of fucked up. Especially the Book of Revelations... all kinds of crazy shit in there.
> 
> We don't have a problem with Islam because their belief in Sky Pixies is somehow worse than Western beliefs in Sky Pixies.
> 
> We have a problem with them because we've stolen their land, bombed their countries, and exploited their resources.
> 
> That's why we have a problem.
Click to expand...


Most of Jesus' teachings make perfect sense.  Jesus was a peaceful guy.  I agree about Revelations, but I don't really believe in any of that stuff anyways.  I don't believe in the far fetched stories.  Like I told you, I think they are just like parables.  

Don't forget that back in those days, they didn't have any police or really much authority at all.  They couldn't possibly police everyone, so there were a lot of bad things going on.  I think religion was a way to put the "fear of God" into people, so they used these stories in a way to try and make people police themselves.  

It seems to me that other religions have moderated themselves and fit in more with the modern world, while Islam has not.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, 12th Imam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of Islam is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a known fact that the Iranians believe in a 12th Imam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a known fact that MANY Americans believe there will be a second coming of Jesus.
> 
> Which is really hard, because there wasn't a first coming of Jesus.  That fucker never existed.
Click to expand...


Maybe he did exist.  If so, I don't believe he was "divine" though.  He was a man who had a lot of common sense though.  

Nowadays, he probably would be locked up in an asylum somewhere though.    But, for the way things were back then . . . he made sense using "religion" to make people think about what they were doing and to know right from wrong.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil." Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus didn't have any wonderful teachings.  Really, the teachings in the NT are kind of fucked up. Especially the Book of Revelations... all kinds of crazy shit in there.
> 
> We don't have a problem with Islam because their belief in Sky Pixies is somehow worse than Western beliefs in Sky Pixies.
> 
> We have a problem with them because we've stolen their land, bombed their countries, and exploited their resources.
> 
> That's why we have a problem.
Click to expand...


No, we have a problem with them because they are extremists.  They pray SIX TIMES a day.  They stop whatever it is they're doing to go pray to Allah.  

Christians are also batty when they say things like homosexuals are "evil" and the like, but they aren't going around hanging people for homosexual.  Instead, they try to demean them and other such things.  I don't doubt that if some of the more religious were just a "bit" more ignorant they might not do the same, but most American Christians would never do that, and I think you know that.  

The people in the ME are NOT like us.


----------



## Dot Com

NotfooledbyW said:


> Slyh 11063821.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think the 13th Imam will protect them from retaliation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the 2nd most revered prophet in Islam - So Iran doesn't have a chance against ISIS if Jesus is the one who will save ISIS at the end of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .   After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, _*Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic
> 
> Does anyone really expect a US Administration to figure out and deal with all this nut job Armageddon religious crap? No sane modern government can be expected to have a ready military plan to deal with insane ancient religious murderous goons.
Click to expand...

it is ironic & comic how 3 branches of the same belief- monotheism discount each other when it suits them lol


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that after Iran causes chaos and destruction the 12th imam is supposedly supposed to make everything better for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any less crazy than all you Christians who believe in "The Second Coming of Jesus", which will also be accompanied by a lot of chaos and destruction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pictured: Some Crazy Shit Right there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil."  Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

lol. "wonderful teachings"? Like being punished after death?


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, 12th Imam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of Islam is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a known fact that the Iranians believe in a 12th Imam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a known fact that MANY Americans believe there will be a second coming of Jesus.
> 
> Which is really hard, because there wasn't a first coming of Jesus.  That fucker never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he did exist.  If so, I don't believe he was "divine" though.  He was a man who had a lot of common sense though.
> 
> Nowadays, he probably would be locked up in an asylum somewhere though.    But, for the way things were back then . . . he made sense using "religion" to make people think about what they were doing and to know right from wrong.
Click to expand...

you're opinion & $1.87 plus tax will get you a cup of coffee.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My mistake, 12th Imam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of Islam is duly noted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a known fact that the Iranians believe in a 12th Imam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a known fact that MANY Americans believe there will be a second coming of Jesus.
> 
> Which is really hard, because there wasn't a first coming of Jesus.  That fucker never existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he did exist.  If so, I don't believe he was "divine" though.  He was a man who had a lot of common sense though.
> 
> Nowadays, he probably would be locked up in an asylum somewhere though.    But, for the way things were back then . . . he made sense using "religion" to make people think about what they were doing and to know right from wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're opinion & $1.87 plus tax will get you a cup of coffee.
Click to expand...


Explain yourself, Dot!!


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that after Iran causes chaos and destruction the 12th imam is supposedly supposed to make everything better for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any less crazy than all you Christians who believe in "The Second Coming of Jesus", which will also be accompanied by a lot of chaos and destruction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pictured: Some Crazy Shit Right there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil."  Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. "wonderful teachings"? Like being punished after death?
Click to expand...


Well, that is how they kept people policing themselves.  Of course, this is just my theory about religion and it's origins because I don't buy those far fetched stories as being real.  

Also, ancient peoples were rather ignorant, so they couldn't explain a lot of the "natural events" that took place, so they would blame it on the "wrath of God."    Now that much I know is truth.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slyh 11063821.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> They think the 13th Imam will protect them from retaliation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus is the 2nd most revered prophet in Islam - So Iran doesn't have a chance against ISIS if Jesus is the one who will save ISIS at the end of the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .   After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, _*Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory. *_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . What ISIS Really Wants - The Atlantic
> 
> Does anyone really expect a US Administration to figure out and deal with all this nut job Armageddon religious crap? No sane modern government can be expected to have a ready military plan to deal with insane ancient religious murderous goons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is ironic & comic how 3 branches of the same belief- monotheism discount each other when it suits them lol
Click to expand...


Well, just think of how much access we have to education, the internet, having discussions with others, like we do at places like USMB, etc., and then imagine living in a place like Iran where there is no such thing as freedom of speech.  A lot of the people in the ME are dirt poor and uneducated because of it, and are also not FREE, so they don't have the same luxuries that we do.  When you are isolated in your little "tribal community," ignorance abounds, and so these people will believe what their imams tell them to believe because these are "sophisticated" men, in their little worlds.


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that after Iran causes chaos and destruction the 12th imam is supposedly supposed to make everything better for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any less crazy than all you Christians who believe in "The Second Coming of Jesus", which will also be accompanied by a lot of chaos and destruction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pictured: Some Crazy Shit Right there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil."  Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. "wonderful teachings"? Like being punished after death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is how they kept people policing themselves.  Of course, this is just my theory about religion and it's origins because I don't buy those far fetched stories as being real.
> 
> Also, ancient peoples were rather ignorant, so they couldn't explain a lot of the "natural events" that took place, so they would blame it on the "wrath of God."    Now that much I know is truth.
Click to expand...

you're helping my side of the argument that  sky pixie's are absurd.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand that after Iran causes chaos and destruction the 12th imam is supposedly supposed to make everything better for them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is that any less crazy than all you Christians who believe in "The Second Coming of Jesus", which will also be accompanied by a lot of chaos and destruction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Pictured: Some Crazy Shit Right there.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christianity has moderated itself to fit into society and to become "civil."  Not the case with the Muslim religion, and you always seem to want to conveniently forget about the New Testament and the wonderful teachings of Jesus Christ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol. "wonderful teachings"? Like being punished after death?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that is how they kept people policing themselves.  Of course, this is just my theory about religion and it's origins because I don't buy those far fetched stories as being real.
> 
> Also, ancient peoples were rather ignorant, so they couldn't explain a lot of the "natural events" that took place, so they would blame it on the "wrath of God."    Now that much I know is truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you're helping my side of the argument that  sky pixie's are absurd.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's why I'm agnostic.  I can't say whether there is a "god" or not, but I certainly don't buy most of the things about religion.  I totally believe that religion is a man-made thing.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> no, we have a problem with them because they love death more than life and have no problem killing or dieing to achieve their ends, the creation of a caliphate.



Okay, guy, a bunch of foreigners invade your state, routinely inflict random destruction, and take away your land and destroy your livlihood... what would you do?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, we have a problem with them because they love death more than life and have no problem killing or dieing to achieve their ends, the creation of a caliphate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, a bunch of foreigners invade your state, routinely inflict random destruction, and take away your land and destroy your livlihood... what would you do?
Click to expand...


Well, considering that these people have behaved like this for MILLENNIA, that kinds of blows that theory.  They can't even get along with one another.  Let's be honest.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No, we have a problem with them because they are extremists. They pray SIX TIMES a day. They stop whatever it is they're doing to go pray to Allah.



Oh, my Gosh. Six times a day!!!!  

I had a co-worker who was a Jehovah's Witness.  and she did a lot of crazy religious stuff, too.  



ChrisL said:


> Christians are also batty when they say things like homosexuals are "evil" and the like, but they aren't going around hanging people for homosexual. Instead, they try to demean them and other such things. I don't doubt that if some of the more religious were just a "bit" more ignorant they might not do the same, but most American Christians would never do that, and I think you know that.
> 
> The people in the ME are NOT like us.



Actually, they are too much like us.  We sit here in our comfortable chairs in our nice warm houses with plenty of food to eat and we wonder why people who live in war zones and don't have clean water or enough food to eat might do something- you know - crazy to the people they perceive as causing their misery.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have a problem with them because they are extremists. They pray SIX TIMES a day. They stop whatever it is they're doing to go pray to Allah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my Gosh. Six times a day!!!!
> 
> I had a co-worker who was a Jehovah's Witness.  and she did a lot of crazy religious stuff, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are also batty when they say things like homosexuals are "evil" and the like, but they aren't going around hanging people for homosexual. Instead, they try to demean them and other such things. I don't doubt that if some of the more religious were just a "bit" more ignorant they might not do the same, but most American Christians would never do that, and I think you know that.
> 
> The people in the ME are NOT like us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they are too much like us.  We sit here in our comfortable chairs in our nice warm houses with plenty of food to eat and we wonder why people who live in war zones and don't have clean water or enough food to eat might do something- you know - crazy to the people they perceive as causing their misery.
Click to expand...


Yeah, they have their leaders and dictators to thank for that.  Why don't you take a look at these dictators and what they do?  Remember the oil for food program in Iraq?  

Remember Saddam Hussein's palaces and golden toilets?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have a problem with them because they are extremists. They pray SIX TIMES a day. They stop whatever it is they're doing to go pray to Allah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my Gosh. Six times a day!!!!
> 
> I had a co-worker who was a Jehovah's Witness.  and she did a lot of crazy religious stuff, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are also batty when they say things like homosexuals are "evil" and the like, but they aren't going around hanging people for homosexual. Instead, they try to demean them and other such things. I don't doubt that if some of the more religious were just a "bit" more ignorant they might not do the same, but most American Christians would never do that, and I think you know that.
> 
> The people in the ME are NOT like us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they are too much like us.  We sit here in our comfortable chairs in our nice warm houses with plenty of food to eat and we wonder why people who live in war zones and don't have clean water or enough food to eat might do something- you know - crazy to the people they perceive as causing their misery.
Click to expand...


Do JWs normally carry out acts of terrorism?  I don't think so.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have a problem with them because they are extremists. They pray SIX TIMES a day. They stop whatever it is they're doing to go pray to Allah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, my Gosh. Six times a day!!!!
> 
> I had a co-worker who was a Jehovah's Witness.  and she did a lot of crazy religious stuff, too.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Christians are also batty when they say things like homosexuals are "evil" and the like, but they aren't going around hanging people for homosexual. Instead, they try to demean them and other such things. I don't doubt that if some of the more religious were just a "bit" more ignorant they might not do the same, but most American Christians would never do that, and I think you know that.
> 
> The people in the ME are NOT like us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, they are too much like us.  We sit here in our comfortable chairs in our nice warm houses with plenty of food to eat and we wonder why people who live in war zones and don't have clean water or enough food to eat might do something- you know - crazy to the people they perceive as causing their misery.
Click to expand...


STOP making excuses for terrorist activities.  You aren't "helping" anyone, including those people.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Well, considering that these people have behaved like this for MILLENNIA, that kinds of blows that theory. They can't even get along with one another. Let's be honest.



Well, again, compared to Christians, who have always gotten along so well and have never had wars over religion with each other... Oh, wait. They totally did that.  Even up to this last century. 

Here we go, the list of the deadliest Genocides-  

List of genocides by death toll - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Only a couple of them were instigated by Muslims, such as the Armenian Genocide.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> STOP making excuses for terrorist activities. You aren't "helping" anyone, including those people.



Why is terrorism worse than any other act of war? 

There was this great film about the Algerian War of independence where they asked one of the rebel leaders why they put bombs in women's baskets, and he replied, "Why do you drop bombs by airplane? I'll gladly trade you our baskets for your planes."  

How about getting off your high horse?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering that these people have behaved like this for MILLENNIA, that kinds of blows that theory. They can't even get along with one another. Let's be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, compared to Christians, who have always gotten along so well and have never had wars over religion with each other... Oh, wait. They totally did that.  Even up to this last century.
> 
> Here we go, the list of the deadliest Genocides-
> 
> List of genocides by death toll - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Only a couple of them were instigated by Muslims, such as the Armenian Genocide.
Click to expand...


STOP making excuses for Islamic terrorism.  Besides, most genocides were carried out with no "religiosity" involved, but it was over territory or just plain hate.  Stop resorting to dishonesty to make excuses for terrorism.  It's not going to work.  It also emboldens terrorists when they see people making excuses for their disgusting acts.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Well, just think of how much access we have to education, the internet, having discussions with others, like we do at places like USMB, etc., and then imagine living in a place like Iran where there is no such thing as freedom of speech. A lot of the people in the ME are dirt poor and uneducated because of it, and are also not FREE, so they don't have the same luxuries that we do. When you are isolated in your little "tribal community," ignorance abounds, and so these people will believe what their imams tell them to believe because these are "sophisticated" men, in their little worlds.



Uh, they have elections in Iran. They have newspapers in Iran.  We are having this discussion because Iran has the technology to make nuclear bombs and we don't want them to.  

I think you need to be a little less patronizing.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> STOP making excuses for terrorist activities. You aren't "helping" anyone, including those people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is terrorism worse than any other act of war?
> 
> There was this great film about the Algerian War of independence where they asked one of the rebel leaders why they put bombs in women's baskets, and he replied, "Why do you drop bombs by airplane? I'll gladly trade you our baskets for your planes."
> 
> How about getting off your high horse?
Click to expand...


This thread has nothing to do with "war."  Go start another thread.  It's about Iran, Islam and the fact that some morons want to give Iran the materials to make a bomb.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just think of how much access we have to education, the internet, having discussions with others, like we do at places like USMB, etc., and then imagine living in a place like Iran where there is no such thing as freedom of speech. A lot of the people in the ME are dirt poor and uneducated because of it, and are also not FREE, so they don't have the same luxuries that we do. When you are isolated in your little "tribal community," ignorance abounds, and so these people will believe what their imams tell them to believe because these are "sophisticated" men, in their little worlds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, they have elections in Iran. They have newspapers in Iran.  We are having this discussion because Iran has the technology to make nuclear bombs and we don't want them to.
> 
> I think you need to be a little less patronizing.
Click to expand...


Iran hangs homosexuals.  Homosexuality is an actual CRIME in Iran, so is being raped unless you have "witnesses."  You are behaving like a retard.  Knock it off.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> STOP making excuses for Islamic terrorism. Besides, most genocides were carried out with no "religiosity" involved, but it was over territory or just plain hate. Stop resorting to dishonesty to make excuses for terrorism. It's not going to work. It also emboldens terrorists when they see people making excuses for their disgusting acts.



Naw, what emboldens them is us fucking around in their part of the world.  

So a genocide becomes okay when there's "no religion" involved?  

I'm trying to get if your irrational fear of Muslims is about racism or just fear.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering that these people have behaved like this for MILLENNIA, that kinds of blows that theory. They can't even get along with one another. Let's be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, again, compared to Christians, who have always gotten along so well and have never had wars over religion with each other... Oh, wait. They totally did that.  Even up to this last century.
> 
> Here we go, the list of the deadliest Genocides-
> 
> List of genocides by death toll - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Only a couple of them were instigated by Muslims, such as the Armenian Genocide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> STOP making excuses for Islamic terrorism.  Besides, most genocides were carried out with no "religiosity" involved, but it was over territory or just plain hate.  Stop resorting to dishonesty to make excuses for terrorism.  It's not going to work.  It also emboldens terrorists when they see people making excuses for their disgusting acts.
Click to expand...

That's not an excuse, just the typical insanity of the Children of God slaughtering each other.  You need to be honest about that.  And the solution, Liberalism.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> This thread has nothing to do with "war." Go start another thread. It's about Iran, Islam and the fact that some morons want to give Iran the materials to make a bomb.



Iran already has the materials to make the bomb.  The question is, are we going to allow them to do so... 

My opinion- no biggie if they do.  And it's not like we are in a position to really lecture anyone given the whole Hiroshima thing.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> STOP making excuses for Islamic terrorism. Besides, most genocides were carried out with no "religiosity" involved, but it was over territory or just plain hate. Stop resorting to dishonesty to make excuses for terrorism. It's not going to work. It also emboldens terrorists when they see people making excuses for their disgusting acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, what emboldens them is us fucking around in their part of the world.
> 
> So a genocide becomes okay when there's "no religion" involved?
> 
> I'm trying to get if your irrational fear of Muslims is about racism or just fear.
Click to expand...


Joe, you are a terrorist apologist.  I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims.  I call it how I see it.  No excuses for terrorism.  NONE.  I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done.  That does not excuse it.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just think of how much access we have to education, the internet, having discussions with others, like we do at places like USMB, etc., and then imagine living in a place like Iran where there is no such thing as freedom of speech. A lot of the people in the ME are dirt poor and uneducated because of it, and are also not FREE, so they don't have the same luxuries that we do. When you are isolated in your little "tribal community," ignorance abounds, and so these people will believe what their imams tell them to believe because these are "sophisticated" men, in their little worlds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh, they have elections in Iran. They have newspapers in Iran.  We are having this discussion because Iran has the technology to make nuclear bombs and we don't want them to.
> 
> I think you need to be a little less patronizing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Iran hangs homosexuals.  Homosexuality is an actual CRIME in Iran, so is being raped unless you have "witnesses."  You are behaving like a retard.  Knock it off.
Click to expand...

The Good Book says homosexuality, and witchcraft, and disobeying your parents, are all punishable by death.  As for rape, well, you have to marry her.  Do try to be fair-minded about the insanity that is religion.  For the most part, they are seriously fucked up and that's how the believers act.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Iran hangs homosexuals. Homosexuality is an actual CRIME in Iran, so is being raped unless you have "witnesses." You are behaving like a retard. Knock it off.



How many homosexuals does Iran hang a year.  Do you actually have a number for that? Because earlier in this thread I posted figures for the mere 741 executions iran did in 2014, and only two of them were specifically for "Sodomy" (and they don't even go into detail if that involved adults or children.) 

Now, yes, I think Iranian Justice is barbaric. I also think justice in Texas is barbaric.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist. I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims. I call it how I see it. No excuses for terrorism. NONE. I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done. That does not excuse it.



You keep trying to say "terrorism", like that's a bad thing compared to let's say, War for Oil.  They are both kind of bad things.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> STOP making excuses for Islamic terrorism. Besides, most genocides were carried out with no "religiosity" involved, but it was over territory or just plain hate. Stop resorting to dishonesty to make excuses for terrorism. It's not going to work. It also emboldens terrorists when they see people making excuses for their disgusting acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, what emboldens them is us fucking around in their part of the world.
> 
> So a genocide becomes okay when there's "no religion" involved?
> 
> I'm trying to get if your irrational fear of Muslims is about racism or just fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist.  I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims.  I call it how I see it.  No excuses for terrorism.  NONE.  I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done.  That does not excuse it.
Click to expand...

Q:  Why were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan if not to induce Terror?  Was that acceptable?


----------



## JoeB131

PaintMyHouse said:


> Q: Why were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan if not to induce Terror? Was that acceptable?



I think i had this discussion with them last week, and got all sort of rationalizations which were amusing.


----------



## Dot Com

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist. I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims. I call it how I see it. No excuses for terrorism. NONE. I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done. That does not excuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to say "terrorism", like that's a bad thing compared to let's say, War for Oil.  They are both kind of bad things.
Click to expand...

agree 100%


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> no, we have a problem with them because they love death more than life and have no problem killing or dieing to achieve their ends, the creation of a caliphate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, guy, a bunch of foreigners invade your state, routinely inflict random destruction, and take away your land and destroy your livlihood... what would you do?
Click to expand...

Who invaded Afghanistan, before 9/11, who invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Rwanda, etc. Who invaded Michigan? Where ever you find a Muslim you find a Muslim trying to install their belief system over and above everyone else's. And 1% or more, of them will kill you to change you. That's over a million Muslims.


----------



## Antares

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> STOP making excuses for Islamic terrorism. Besides, most genocides were carried out with no "religiosity" involved, but it was over territory or just plain hate. Stop resorting to dishonesty to make excuses for terrorism. It's not going to work. It also emboldens terrorists when they see people making excuses for their disgusting acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, what emboldens them is us fucking around in their part of the world.
> 
> So a genocide becomes okay when there's "no religion" involved?
> 
> I'm trying to get if your irrational fear of Muslims is about racism or just fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist.  I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims.  I call it how I see it.  No excuses for terrorism.  NONE.  I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done.  That does not excuse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Q:  Why were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan if not to induce Terror?  Was that acceptable?
Click to expand...


I'd almost ask them not to have dropped that bomb if you great grand daddy would have been in on the Japanese Mainland invasion, chance are then that you wouldn't be here.

But let's not allow you equivocate War and Terror.

Huge difference, you attack me you don't get to cry when the shit hits the fan....tough shit about the Japanese Civilians but when you think your leader is divine and you just let him do what he wants...oh well.


----------



## ChrisL

PaintMyHouse said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> STOP making excuses for Islamic terrorism. Besides, most genocides were carried out with no "religiosity" involved, but it was over territory or just plain hate. Stop resorting to dishonesty to make excuses for terrorism. It's not going to work. It also emboldens terrorists when they see people making excuses for their disgusting acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, what emboldens them is us fucking around in their part of the world.
> 
> So a genocide becomes okay when there's "no religion" involved?
> 
> I'm trying to get if your irrational fear of Muslims is about racism or just fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist.  I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims.  I call it how I see it.  No excuses for terrorism.  NONE.  I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done.  That does not excuse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Q:  Why were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan if not to induce Terror?  Was that acceptable?
Click to expand...


Because the Japanese would not give up.  They and the Germans were trying to enforce their will upon others who were not in a position to fight back.  War is NOT terrorism.


----------



## ChrisL

Antares said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> STOP making excuses for Islamic terrorism. Besides, most genocides were carried out with no "religiosity" involved, but it was over territory or just plain hate. Stop resorting to dishonesty to make excuses for terrorism. It's not going to work. It also emboldens terrorists when they see people making excuses for their disgusting acts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, what emboldens them is us fucking around in their part of the world.
> 
> So a genocide becomes okay when there's "no religion" involved?
> 
> I'm trying to get if your irrational fear of Muslims is about racism or just fear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist.  I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims.  I call it how I see it.  No excuses for terrorism.  NONE.  I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done.  That does not excuse it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Q:  Why were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan if not to induce Terror?  Was that acceptable?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd almost ask them not to have dropped that bomb if you great grand daddy would have been in on the Japanese Mainland invasion, chance are then that you wouldn't be here.
> 
> But let's not allow you equivocate War and Terror.
> 
> Huge difference, you attack me you don't get to cry when the shit hits the fan....tough shit about the Japanese Civilians but when you think your leader is divine and you just let him do what he wants...oh well.
Click to expand...


Hey, that's basically what I said.    Lol.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist. I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims. I call it how I see it. No excuses for terrorism. NONE. I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done. That does not excuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to say "terrorism", like that's a bad thing compared to let's say, War for Oil.  They are both kind of bad things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree 100%
Click to expand...


Only, there was no "war for oil."  That is ridiculous since we did not benefit from the oil.  CHINA did.    We do not purchase much oil from the mid east at all.  If we had wanted their oil, we would have taken it.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran hangs homosexuals. Homosexuality is an actual CRIME in Iran, so is being raped unless you have "witnesses." You are behaving like a retard. Knock it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many homosexuals does Iran hang a year.  Do you actually have a number for that? Because earlier in this thread I posted figures for the mere 741 executions iran did in 2014, and only two of them were specifically for "Sodomy" (and they don't even go into detail if that involved adults or children.)
> 
> Now, yes, I think Iranian Justice is barbaric. I also think justice in Texas is barbaric.
Click to expand...


Oh, so now you are defending Islam hanging homosexuals?  Why don't YOU post something to back up any of your claims EVER?  And why don't you do some reading of your own.  Do you not know what is going on over there?  You make me want to hurl Joe, you hypocritical asshole.  

The gay people pushed to change their gender - BBC News


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist. I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims. I call it how I see it. No excuses for terrorism. NONE. I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done. That does not excuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to say "terrorism", like that's a bad thing compared to let's say, War for Oil.  They are both kind of bad things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree 100%
Click to expand...


You are stupid to agree with anything dumb Joe says.  Seriously.  Stupid.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Q: Why were the atomic bombs dropped on Japan if not to induce Terror? Was that acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think i had this discussion with them last week, and got all sort of rationalizations which were amusing.
Click to expand...


Yeah, sure you did.  Perhaps in your own demented mind.  I think everyone is aware how badly you get bashed on pretty much every topic because of your own hypocrisy and trying to make comparisons of what is happening TODAY to what happened in ancient history.  You are ridiculous, and that is an understatement.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran hangs homosexuals. Homosexuality is an actual CRIME in Iran, so is being raped unless you have "witnesses." You are behaving like a retard. Knock it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many homosexuals does Iran hang a year.  Do you actually have a number for that? Because earlier in this thread I posted figures for the mere 741 executions iran did in 2014, and only two of them were specifically for "Sodomy" (and they don't even go into detail if that involved adults or children.)
> 
> Now, yes, I think Iranian Justice is barbaric. I also think justice in Texas is barbaric.
Click to expand...


Oh, so ONLY 741?  Oh wow!  They are good people then, right?


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Who invaded Afghanistan, before 9/11, who invaded Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Rwanda, etc. Who invaded Michigan? Where ever you find a Muslim you find a Muslim trying to install their belief system over and above everyone else's. And 1% or more, of them will kill you to change you. That's over a million Muslims.



I must have missed the battle of Michigan.  

Oh, you do know it was Christians doing most of the killing in Rwanda, right?   In fact, they even convicted two Nuns of participating in genocide.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Yeah, sure you did. Perhaps in your own demented mind. I think everyone is aware how badly you get bashed on pretty much every topic because of your own hypocrisy and trying to make comparisons of what is happening TODAY to what happened in ancient history. You are ridiculous, and that is an understatement.



1945 was ancient history?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Oh, so ONLY 741? Oh wow! They are good people then, right?



depends. How many people did they execute who were murderers and rapists?  You know, people who might have deserved it.  

Since we still execute people in this country, no place to talk, really.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Only, there was no "war for oil." That is ridiculous since we did not benefit from the oil. CHINA did.  We do not purchase much oil from the mid east at all. If we had wanted their oil, we would have taken it.



I think you are a little confused here who benefits from a "War for Oil".  

The Oil companies benefit, not the American consumer.  They're just supposed to serve their sons up for the meat grinder.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Because the Japanese would not give up. They and the Germans were trying to enforce their will upon others who were not in a position to fight back. War is NOT terrorism.



Terrorism is war by other means.  

Oh, the Japanese were perfectly willing to surrender if we let them keep their Emperor.  and when the Russians threatened to take all the prizes, we agreed.  A-bombs were totally unneeded.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, sure you did. Perhaps in your own demented mind. I think everyone is aware how badly you get bashed on pretty much every topic because of your own hypocrisy and trying to make comparisons of what is happening TODAY to what happened in ancient history. You are ridiculous, and that is an understatement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1945 was ancient history?
Click to expand...


YES.


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist. I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims. I call it how I see it. No excuses for terrorism. NONE. I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done. That does not excuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to say "terrorism", like that's a bad thing compared to let's say, War for Oil.  They are both kind of bad things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are stupid to agree with anything dumb Joe says.  Seriously.  Stupid.
Click to expand...

because he disagrees w/you?


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because the Japanese would not give up. They and the Germans were trying to enforce their will upon others who were not in a position to fight back. War is NOT terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Terrorism is war by other means.
> 
> Oh, the Japanese were perfectly willing to surrender if we let them keep their Emperor.  and when the Russians threatened to take all the prizes, we agreed.  A-bombs were totally unneeded.
Click to expand...


The bombings put an END to the war.  Perhaps you need an education in history.  

The Decision to Drop the Bomb ushistory.org


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist. I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims. I call it how I see it. No excuses for terrorism. NONE. I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done. That does not excuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to say "terrorism", like that's a bad thing compared to let's say, War for Oil.  They are both kind of bad things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are stupid to agree with anything dumb Joe says.  Seriously.  Stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> because he disagrees w/you?
Click to expand...


Oh, so what exactly is it that you agree with Joe on?


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist. I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims. I call it how I see it. No excuses for terrorism. NONE. I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done. That does not excuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to say "terrorism", like that's a bad thing compared to let's say, War for Oil.  They are both kind of bad things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only, there was no "war for oil."  That is ridiculous since we did not benefit from the oil.  CHINA did.    We do not purchase much oil from the mid east at all.  If we had wanted their oil, we would have taken it.
Click to expand...

  what are your foreign policy bonafides again missy ChrisL ? 

BTW- I've been to that region of the world when I served? You?


----------



## JoeB131

Antares said:


> Huge difference, you attack me you don't get to cry when the shit hits the fan....tough shit about the Japanese Civilians but when you think your leader is divine and you just let him do what he wants...oh well.



Tough shit about those civilians in Tel Aviv, but when you think a Sky Pixie told you to be there....


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Oh, so now you are defending Islam hanging homosexuals? Why don't YOU post something to back up any of your claims EVER? And why don't you do some reading of your own. Do you not know what is going on over there? You make me want to hurl Joe, you hypocritical asshole.



YOu make me laugh, dumb ass little girl who thinks she knows how the world works.  

I don't defend it or condemn it.  It falls into that category of "none of our fucking business."  When America has solved all of its problems, then we can go about lecturing other countries.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Joe, you are a terrorist apologist. I don't have an irrational fear of Muslims. I call it how I see it. No excuses for terrorism. NONE. I don't care if you bring up what other people have allegedly done. That does not excuse it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep trying to say "terrorism", like that's a bad thing compared to let's say, War for Oil.  They are both kind of bad things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> agree 100%
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only, there was no "war for oil."  That is ridiculous since we did not benefit from the oil.  CHINA did.    We do not purchase much oil from the mid east at all.  If we had wanted their oil, we would have taken it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what are your foreign policy bonafides again missy ChrisL ?
> 
> BTW- I've been to that region of the world when I served? You?
Click to expand...


What does that have to do with my statement.  Can you refute it?  I'll be waiting.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so now you are defending Islam hanging homosexuals? Why don't YOU post something to back up any of your claims EVER? And why don't you do some reading of your own. Do you not know what is going on over there? You make me want to hurl Joe, you hypocritical asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu make me laugh, dumb ass little girl who thinks she knows how the world works.
> 
> I don't defend it or condemn it.  It falls into that category of "none of our fucking business."  When America has solved all of its problems, then we can go about lecturing other countries.
Click to expand...


Lecturing?  Who is lecturing?  I'm calling you out for being a terrorist apologist and defending the execution of homosexuals.  Pretty hypocritical for a liberal, eh?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> The bombings put an END to the war. Perhaps you need an education in history.



I've got a degree in history from the University of Illinois. 

Hey, on real college campuses, the ones where they dont' teach about talking snakes in Science class, most real historians agree that what prompted the Japanese to surrender was that the USSR entered the war and opened a new front of whoopass on them. 

Not that we dropped two more bombs on them on top of the thousands we had already dropped.


----------



## Dot Com

looks like ChrisL is on another daily posting rampage to stay on that leader board w/ her HS debating tactics. Whatevs. I'm going out


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bombings put an END to the war. Perhaps you need an education in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a degree in history from the University of Illinois.
> 
> Hey, on real college campuses, the ones where they dont' teach about talking snakes in Science class, most real historians agree that what prompted the Japanese to surrender was that the USSR entered the war and opened a new front of whoopass on them.
> 
> Not that we dropped two more bombs on them on top of the thousands we had already dropped.
Click to expand...


FYI, I was educated in the liberal Massachusetts public school system.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Lecturing? Who is lecturing? I'm calling you out for being a terrorist apologist and defending the execution of homosexuals. Pretty hypocritical for a liberal, eh?



why is that our business. 

How many young American lives are you willing to throw away to get the Iranian government to stop executing homosexuals. (Psst. Psst. They were executed under the Shah as well.)  

Terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States.  We should stop acting like it is.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> looks like ChrisL is on another daily posting rampage to stay on that leader board w/ her HS debating tactics. Whatevs. I'm going out



Because you have nothing to add except for blindly agreeing with Joe Schmoe?  Mkay, see ya!


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lecturing? Who is lecturing? I'm calling you out for being a terrorist apologist and defending the execution of homosexuals. Pretty hypocritical for a liberal, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why is that our business.
> 
> How many young American lives are you willing to throw away to get the Iranian government to stop executing homosexuals. (Psst. Psst. They were executed under the Shah as well.)
> 
> Terrorism is not an existential threat to the United States.  We should stop acting like it is.
Click to expand...


That is not the point, Joe.  The point is that you are defending terrorism.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> That is not the point, Joe. The point is that you are defending terrorism.



No, I just don't go into hysterics because they are delivering bombs in baskets instead of airplanes. 

Our Middle East policy is to stick our dick in a hornet's nest and then complain when we get stung.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not the point, Joe. The point is that you are defending terrorism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I just don't go into hysterics because they are delivering bombs in baskets instead of airplanes.
> 
> Our Middle East policy is to stick our dick in a hornet's nest and then complain when we get stung.
Click to expand...


Who is in hysterics?  Lol.  You are defending and excusing terrorism and executions of homosexuals and oppression of women.  That is all there is to it.  

I'm trying to get you to realize that there is no defense of these things and that you really need to stop making excuses for them.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Who is in hysterics? Lol. You are defending and excusing terrorism and executions of homosexuals and oppression of women. That is all there is to it.



Well, no, you see, when I see a lot of people clamoring for war and citing made up attrocities, I have to question who is making up the attrocities. 

Again, if you want to go sign up and fight for Oil Company Profits, feel free.  



ChrisL said:


> I'm trying to get you to realize that there is no defense of these things and that you really need to stop making excuses for them.



ANd I'm trying to get through to you that none of these things are our business.  

Our so-called "allies" in the Middle East sponsor more terrorism than Iran does, and they are a lot more oppressive on their women.


----------



## natstew

JoeB131,
You poor misguided soul. What's the matter, mommy didn't change your diaper often enough?


----------



## JoeB131

natstew said:


> JoeB131,
> You poor misguided soul. What's the matter, mommy didn't change your diaper often enough?



Duly noted you can't answer any of my points, and no one wants to hear your infantilism fetishes.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is in hysterics? Lol. You are defending and excusing terrorism and executions of homosexuals and oppression of women. That is all there is to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, no, you see, when I see a lot of people clamoring for war and citing made up attrocities, I have to question who is making up the attrocities.
> 
> Again, if you want to go sign up and fight for Oil Company Profits, feel free.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm trying to get you to realize that there is no defense of these things and that you really need to stop making excuses for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ANd I'm trying to get through to you that none of these things are our business.
> 
> Our so-called "allies" in the Middle East sponsor more terrorism than Iran does, and they are a lot more oppressive on their women.
Click to expand...


Nobody here is citing anything that is "made up."  This information is found easily.  The fact is homosexuality is a death sentence in Iran.  End of story.  There is nothing to argue about.  Now, are you supporting that kind of ideology?  

Sign up and fight for oil company profits?  WTF are you talking about?  You are starting to lose it, Joe.   

No shit they aren't, but you are defending Iran and terrorism.  There are no excuses.  Stop trying to make excuses for terrorism and the murder of innocent people.  

No they do not.  Iran is known to be one of the biggest supporters of terrorism.  THAT is why all of their neighbors hate them and don't trust them.  Why don't you go look it up for yourself and learn a thing or two?


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## ChrisL

Vigilante said:


>



God, some of these memes tonight are very good.    Right on the money!


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## ChrisL

Vigilante said:


>



Lol.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Vigilante




----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Nobody here is citing anything that is "made up." This information is found easily. The fact is homosexuality is a death sentence in Iran. End of story. There is nothing to argue about. Now, are you supporting that kind of ideology?



And again, how many homosexuals- not child molestors, but homosexuals - are executed in Iran every year?  Because you have yet to give me that number.  



ChrisL said:


> Sign up and fight for oil company profits? WTF are you talking about? You are starting to lose it, Joe.



It just seems odd that we never gave a shit about the Middle East until we found out they had oil. I mean, are you realy this clueless?  



ChrisL said:


> No they do not. Iran is known to be one of the biggest supporters of terrorism. THAT is why all of their neighbors hate them and don't trust them. Why don't you go look it up for yourself and learn a thing or two?



All their neighbors hate them because they don't want their people doing what the Iranians did- throwing out the corrupt Kings and Dictators in exchange for popular leaders.  

But, yeah, Saudi Arabia sponsor terrorism.  Big Time.  And Bin Laden wasn't hiding in Iran he was hiding in Pakistan, our supposed "Ally" which is also bankrolling the Taliban. 

Why Does the U.S. Support Saudi Arabia A Country Which Hosts and Finances Islamic Terrorism On Behalf of Washington Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

*“Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings,” Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote in the New York Times. “For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism [another term for Wahhabism] across the globe.”*

*Such entities “have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government*, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism,” he adds.

***

Then-U.S. Secretary of State *Hillary Clinton wrote in a December 2009 leaked diplomatic cable that entities in Saudi Arabia were the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”*

***

Yet the United States keeps mum because the *Saudi monarchy serves U.S. interests*. Due to its pivotal role in OPEC, it makes sure that crude oil prices don’t rise above a certain level. It is a* key purchaser of American weapons. It invests in U.S. government bonds. And it has acted in the past as proxy for covert U.S. actions, such as funneling arms and funding to the Nicaraguan contras*.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody here is citing anything that is "made up." This information is found easily. The fact is homosexuality is a death sentence in Iran. End of story. There is nothing to argue about. Now, are you supporting that kind of ideology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, how many homosexuals- not child molestors, but homosexuals - are executed in Iran every year?  Because you have yet to give me that number.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sign up and fight for oil company profits? WTF are you talking about? You are starting to lose it, Joe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just seems odd that we never gave a shit about the Middle East until we found out they had oil. I mean, are you realy this clueless?
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No they do not. Iran is known to be one of the biggest supporters of terrorism. THAT is why all of their neighbors hate them and don't trust them. Why don't you go look it up for yourself and learn a thing or two?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All their neighbors hate them because they don't want their people doing what the Iranians did- throwing out the corrupt Kings and Dictators in exchange for popular leaders.
> 
> But, yeah, Saudi Arabia sponsor terrorism.  Big Time.  And Bin Laden wasn't hiding in Iran he was hiding in Pakistan, our supposed "Ally" which is also bankrolling the Taliban.
> 
> Why Does the U.S. Support Saudi Arabia A Country Which Hosts and Finances Islamic Terrorism On Behalf of Washington Global Research - Centre for Research on Globalization
> 
> *“Al Qaeda, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, Boko Haram, the Shabab and others are all violent Sunni Salafi groupings,” Ed Husain of the Council on Foreign Relations recently wrote in the New York Times. “For five decades, Saudi Arabia has been the official sponsor of Sunni Salafism [another term for Wahhabism] across the globe.”*
> 
> *Such entities “have been lavishly supported by the Saudi government*, which has appointed emissaries to its embassies in Muslim countries who proselytize for Salafism,” he adds.
> 
> ***
> 
> Then-U.S. Secretary of State *Hillary Clinton wrote in a December 2009 leaked diplomatic cable that entities in Saudi Arabia were the “most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”*
> 
> ***
> 
> Yet the United States keeps mum because the *Saudi monarchy serves U.S. interests*. Due to its pivotal role in OPEC, it makes sure that crude oil prices don’t rise above a certain level. It is a* key purchaser of American weapons. It invests in U.S. government bonds. And it has acted in the past as proxy for covert U.S. actions, such as funneling arms and funding to the Nicaraguan contras*.
Click to expand...


I posted a link for you in this very thread.  I'm sorry that you choose to ignore the information contained in it.  Do you dispute the fact that Iran executes people for being homosexuals?  

Sorry if you don't like it, but OIL makes the world go around.    Of course we would be concerned.  But again, the US did NOT take any oil during the Iraq war.  I think that sufficiently proves that the war was not based on oil.  I believe that is rational to think that the war was about a few different factors and not just ONE reason.  

No, their neighbors don't like them or trust them because of the fact that they start trouble by sponsoring and funding terrorism, and attack other countries by proxy using those terrorists.  

I'm sure the Saudis do also sponsor terrorism.  I've never argued that point, so it is rather irrelevant to our discussion about Iran.  Don't you think?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> I posted a link for you in this very thread. I'm sorry that you choose to ignore the information contained in it. Do you dispute the fact that Iran executes people for being homosexuals?



I think they probably do execute a few..  Is it a big deal? Not really.  It's also sort of none of our business. 



ChrisL said:


> Sorry if you don't like it, but OIL makes the world go around.  Of course we would be concerned. But again, the US did NOT take any oil during the Iraq war. I think that sufficiently proves that the war was not based on oil. I believe that is rational to think that the war was about a few different factors and not just ONE reason.



Again, you are a bit dense. We didn't got to war to get oil to benefit Joe Consumer. We went to benefit the profits of big oil.  I'm sorry you don't get this.  We could get off oil with a carefully good plan to find alternatives.  For instance, in WWII, the Japanese cut off the world's rubber supply, but we just turned around and developed alternatives. 



ChrisL said:


> No, their neighbors don't like them or trust them because of the fact that they start trouble by sponsoring and funding terrorism, and attack other countries by proxy using those terrorists.
> 
> I'm sure the Saudis do also sponsor terrorism. I've never argued that point, so it is rather irrelevant to our discussion about Iran. Don't you think?



Well, no it's completely relevent.  The question is here is whether we should engage Iran the way we engage Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two countries that claim to be our allies but sponsor a lot more terrorism than Iran does.  

So what we are talking about here is engaging Iran on Nukes and other matters.  Some things the Iranians are doing are to our benefit. For instance, they are taking care of ISIS for us. If we stopped letting the Zionists dictate our policy, we could probably find some common ground.


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted a link for you in this very thread. I'm sorry that you choose to ignore the information contained in it. Do you dispute the fact that Iran executes people for being homosexuals?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they probably do execute a few..  Is it a big deal? Not really.  It's also sort of none of our business.
Click to expand...


You know if the Libertarians were in charge, back in WWII, we would've said the same thing about the Jews. Then there wouldn't be a Jew left alive today. Does that matter? Why should we care if they kill each other off?


----------



## Dot Com

I agree w/ JoeB131 on this one. ChrisL- you are floundering.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> I agree w/ JoeB131 on this one. ChrisL- you are floundering.



Mmm.  I don't think so Dot.    Joe is like, "oh, so they execute women and homos, no biggie."  That's pretty sick and effed up, if you ask me.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> You know if the Libertarians were in charge, back in WWII, we would've said the same thing about the Jews. Then there wouldn't be a Jew left alive today. Does that matter? Why should we care if they kill each other off?



We didn't at the time.  No one cared in 1941 that Hitler was killing the Jews. We sent refugee ships back to Europe.  

We got into World War II because the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on us (even though his treaty with Japan didn't require it.)


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Mmm. I don't think so Dot.  Joe is like, "oh, so they execute women and homos, no biggie." That's pretty sick and effed up, if you ask me.



Again, it's not our job to dictate morals to other countries.  We execute people in this country, including until recently, crimes committed by people when they were children. Most of the world  has outlawed capital punishment. 

Kind of like we are dictating to Iran that they can't have a bomb when we are the ONLY nation to ever use one on people.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm. I don't think so Dot.  Joe is like, "oh, so they execute women and homos, no biggie." That's pretty sick and effed up, if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not our job to dictate morals to other countries.  We execute people in this country, including until recently, crimes committed by people when they were children. Most of the world  has outlawed capital punishment.
> 
> Kind of like we are dictating to Iran that they can't have a bomb when we are the ONLY nation to ever use one on people.
Click to expand...


Do we execute people for being gay?  For being raped?  For cheating on their husbands?  

Too bad.  Yes we can dictate to them, and for the good of the world, we should.


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm. I don't think so Dot.  Joe is like, "oh, so they execute women and homos, no biggie." That's pretty sick and effed up, if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not our job to dictate morals to other countries.  We execute people in this country, including until recently, crimes committed by people when they were children. Most of the world  has outlawed capital punishment.
> 
> Kind of like we are dictating to Iran that they can't have a bomb when we are the ONLY nation to ever use one on people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we execute people for being gay?  For being raped?  For cheating on their husbands?
> 
> Too bad.  Yes we can dictate to them, and for the good of the world, we should.
Click to expand...

who is going to pay for your world's police force? You? 

BTW- you ever serve?


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm. I don't think so Dot.  Joe is like, "oh, so they execute women and homos, no biggie." That's pretty sick and effed up, if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not our job to dictate morals to other countries.  We execute people in this country, including until recently, crimes committed by people when they were children. Most of the world  has outlawed capital punishment.
> 
> Kind of like we are dictating to Iran that they can't have a bomb when we are the ONLY nation to ever use one on people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we execute people for being gay?  For being raped?  For cheating on their husbands?
> 
> Too bad.  Yes we can dictate to them, and for the good of the world, we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who is going to pay for your world's police force? You?
> 
> BTW- you ever serve?
Click to expand...


I'm a 36-year-old, 5 foot 1 inch female who weighs 100 pounds.  WHAT do you think?  

We already give countries BILLIONS of dollars in aid, in case you didn't know that.  We already are the world's police force whether you want to recognize that or not.


----------



## Care4all

Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.

Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.

And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....


----------



## ChrisL

Care4all said:


> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....



They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?

Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html

IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News


----------



## Care4all

ChrisL said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
Click to expand...

Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION....if a deal can be worked!!!


----------



## ChrisL

Care4all said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
Click to expand...


No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.


----------



## ChrisL

Great idea, LOOSEN sanctions????    In WHAT world is this a good idea?


----------



## ChrisL

Oh, I know, let's HELP THEM and make it EASIER for them to get the materials they need to make a bomb!  Great idea!!!


----------



## Dot Com

ChrisL said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm. I don't think so Dot.  Joe is like, "oh, so they execute women and homos, no biggie." That's pretty sick and effed up, if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not our job to dictate morals to other countries.  We execute people in this country, including until recently, crimes committed by people when they were children. Most of the world  has outlawed capital punishment.
> 
> Kind of like we are dictating to Iran that they can't have a bomb when we are the ONLY nation to ever use one on people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we execute people for being gay?  For being raped?  For cheating on their husbands?
> 
> Too bad.  Yes we can dictate to them, and for the good of the world, we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who is going to pay for your world's police force? You?
> 
> BTW- you ever serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a 36-year-old, 5 foot 1 inch female who weighs 100 pounds.  WHAT do you think?
> 
> We already give countries BILLIONS of dollars in aid, in case you didn't know that.  We already are the world's police force whether you want to recognize that or not.
Click to expand...

so the status quo is permanent in your pretty little head?  The definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results.


----------



## ChrisL

Dot Com said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mmm. I don't think so Dot.  Joe is like, "oh, so they execute women and homos, no biggie." That's pretty sick and effed up, if you ask me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, it's not our job to dictate morals to other countries.  We execute people in this country, including until recently, crimes committed by people when they were children. Most of the world  has outlawed capital punishment.
> 
> Kind of like we are dictating to Iran that they can't have a bomb when we are the ONLY nation to ever use one on people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do we execute people for being gay?  For being raped?  For cheating on their husbands?
> 
> Too bad.  Yes we can dictate to them, and for the good of the world, we should.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who is going to pay for your world's police force? You?
> 
> BTW- you ever serve?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a 36-year-old, 5 foot 1 inch female who weighs 100 pounds.  WHAT do you think?
> 
> We already give countries BILLIONS of dollars in aid, in case you didn't know that.  We already are the world's police force whether you want to recognize that or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so the status quo is permanent in your pretty little head?  The definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Click to expand...


Lol.  Well that doesn't mean that making deals with people who do not obey the rules is ever a good idea.  To me, THAT is insanity.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
Click to expand...

The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.

Sanctions don't work.

Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Do we execute people for being gay? For being raped? For cheating on their husbands?
> 
> Too bad. Yes we can dictate to them, and for the good of the world, we should.



When you sign up for the military and ask to come back in a body bag, you can dictate to Iranians all day.  

Most of us don't think reforming their culture is worth one American Life.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> No it is not. Tougher sanctions are the smarter option. When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.



Tougher Sanctions aren't an option.  

The thing is, there are six parties in these talks.  Five of them are not inclined to toughen sanctions. The Russians and Chinese want to trade with Iran.   At some point, they'll conclude we aren't negotiating in good faith and just cut their own deals.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Oh, I know, let's HELP THEM and make it EASIER for them to get the materials they need to make a bomb! Great idea!!!



Again, they already have the materials they need to make a bomb. They have uranium. They have centrifuges.  They have the other goodies they need.  

Our only option is trading supervision of their program by the IAEA in exchange for letting them have greater access to consumer goods.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
Click to expand...


Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board.  If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I know, let's HELP THEM and make it EASIER for them to get the materials they need to make a bomb! Great idea!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they already have the materials they need to make a bomb. They have uranium. They have centrifuges.  They have the other goodies they need.
> 
> Our only option is trading supervision of their program by the IAEA in exchange for letting them have greater access to consumer goods.
Click to expand...


The IAEA has said they are not cooperating, STILL.


----------



## ChrisL

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do we execute people for being gay? For being raped? For cheating on their husbands?
> 
> Too bad. Yes we can dictate to them, and for the good of the world, we should.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you sign up for the military and ask to come back in a body bag, you can dictate to Iranians all day.
> 
> Most of us don't think reforming their culture is worth one American Life.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  I don't want to reform their culture.  I just don't want US giving them the means to destruction.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board.  If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.
Click to expand...

Then explain how Iran was enriching Uranium, on its way to build nuclear weapons, if the sanctions were working?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board.  If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then explain how Iran was enriching Uranium, on its way to build nuclear weapons, if the sanctions were working?
Click to expand...


Because of China and Russia.  We can apply pressure to THEM too.  WE have leverage.  

Why Does The U.S. Still Give Millions Of Dollars In Aid To China


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
Click to expand...

Then we need to blow them up.


----------



## Care4all

sanctions kill innocent people who have no say Chris, while the gvt officials bask in luxury....and continue to pursue their nuke goals.

Sanctions were a success in Iraq, eh?  

Saddam and his fuel for food scam just made him richer...


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board.  If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then explain how Iran was enriching Uranium, on its way to build nuclear weapons, if the sanctions were working?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of China and Russia.  We can apply pressure to THEM too.  WE have leverage.
> 
> Why Does The U.S. Still Give Millions Of Dollars In Aid To China
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with Iran. Which sanctions against Iran did China or Russia not abide by?


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we need to blow them up.
Click to expand...

Let's start with you, ok? Strap a bomb onto yourself and lead the way.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Roadrunner

Slyhunter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I think Iran will probably try to get nukes, whether a deal is made or not.  If we were them, we would do the same and to deny that is just ridiculous....imho.
> 
> Soooo, this being my presumption that Iran is going to try to get nukes, then I would rather have us in on a deal that allows inspectors and others to make certain they are not doing something not in the agreement that can lead to that.
> 
> And if Iran just continues with a covert plan to build nuclear weapons, I would rather us have the ability to be within their Nation covertly snooping, and I would rather have sanctions lifted and covert agents of ours working within those private companies selling to them, getting us as much info as possible on any covert operations going on in Iran....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we need to blow them up.
Click to expand...


Obama says we do not have the military means to "blow them up".

I saw it on CNN, and Wuff don't allow no lies.


----------



## lake avenue

Really interesting. Aren't they being tried for treason or something?


----------



## Roadrunner

lake avenue said:


> Really interesting. Aren't they being tried for treason or something?


Who are you talking to, rookie.

Please learn to use the quote feature properly.


----------



## lake avenue

Roadrunner said:


> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really interesting. Aren't they being tried for treason or something?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to, rookie.
> 
> Please learn to use the quote feature properly.
Click to expand...

I'm familiar with forums, I didn't mean to quote anyone. Not every post has to be a quote.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board.  If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then explain how Iran was enriching Uranium, on its way to build nuclear weapons, if the sanctions were working?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of China and Russia.  We can apply pressure to THEM too.  WE have leverage.
> 
> Why Does The U.S. Still Give Millions Of Dollars In Aid To China
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with Iran. Which sanctions against Iran did China or Russia not abide by?
Click to expand...


Why don't you google it and find out for yourself?  There is a LOT of information.  I'm tired of providing you with information that you just ignore.  

You seem to be in denial and clueless.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board.  If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then explain how Iran was enriching Uranium, on its way to build nuclear weapons, if the sanctions were working?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of China and Russia.  We can apply pressure to THEM too.  WE have leverage.
> 
> Why Does The U.S. Still Give Millions Of Dollars In Aid To China
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with Iran. Which sanctions against Iran did China or Russia not abide by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you google it and find out for yourself?  There is a LOT of information.  I'm tired of providing you with information that you just ignore.
> 
> You seem to be in denial and clueless.
Click to expand...

No worries. I figured you were full of shit anyways.


----------



## Faun

lake avenue said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really interesting. Aren't they being tried for treason or something?
> 
> 
> 
> Who are you talking to, rookie.
> 
> Please learn to use the quote feature properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm familiar with forums, I didn't mean to quote anyone. Not every post has to be a quote.
Click to expand...

Welcome aboard.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board.  If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain how Iran was enriching Uranium, on its way to build nuclear weapons, if the sanctions were working?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because of China and Russia.  We can apply pressure to THEM too.  WE have leverage.
> 
> Why Does The U.S. Still Give Millions Of Dollars In Aid To China
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with Iran. Which sanctions against Iran did China or Russia not abide by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you google it and find out for yourself?  There is a LOT of information.  I'm tired of providing you with information that you just ignore.
> 
> You seem to be in denial and clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries. I figured you were full of shit anyways.
Click to expand...


The information is readily available on google.  Sorry if you don't know how to find information on your own.


----------



## lake avenue

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then explain how Iran was enriching Uranium, on its way to build nuclear weapons, if the sanctions were working?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of China and Russia.  We can apply pressure to THEM too.  WE have leverage.
> 
> Why Does The U.S. Still Give Millions Of Dollars In Aid To China
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with Iran. Which sanctions against Iran did China or Russia not abide by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you google it and find out for yourself?  There is a LOT of information.  I'm tired of providing you with information that you just ignore.
> 
> You seem to be in denial and clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries. I figured you were full of shit anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The information is readily available on google.  Sorry if you don't know how to find information on your own.
Click to expand...

the burden of proof lies on those making the claim.


----------



## ChrisL

lake avenue said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of China and Russia.  We can apply pressure to THEM too.  WE have leverage.
> 
> Why Does The U.S. Still Give Millions Of Dollars In Aid To China
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with Iran. Which sanctions against Iran did China or Russia not abide by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you google it and find out for yourself?  There is a LOT of information.  I'm tired of providing you with information that you just ignore.
> 
> You seem to be in denial and clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries. I figured you were full of shit anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The information is readily available on google.  Sorry if you don't know how to find information on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the burden of proof lies on those making the claim.
Click to expand...


Why bother if they ignore it?  

Maybe you want to learn.  Here you go.  

Let me google that for you


----------



## lake avenue

ChrisL said:


> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with Iran. Which sanctions against Iran did China or Russia not abide by?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you google it and find out for yourself?  There is a LOT of information.  I'm tired of providing you with information that you just ignore.
> 
> You seem to be in denial and clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No worries. I figured you were full of shit anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The information is readily available on google.  Sorry if you don't know how to find information on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the burden of proof lies on those making the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother if they ignore it?
> 
> Maybe you want to learn.  Here you go.
> 
> Let me google that for you
Click to expand...

I have no interest in whatever argument or issues you have with each other, nor do I have any worthwhile opinion in it. no need to give me anything.


----------



## ChrisL

lake avenue said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you google it and find out for yourself?  There is a LOT of information.  I'm tired of providing you with information that you just ignore.
> 
> You seem to be in denial and clueless.
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. I figured you were full of shit anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The information is readily available on google.  Sorry if you don't know how to find information on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the burden of proof lies on those making the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother if they ignore it?
> 
> Maybe you want to learn.  Here you go.
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in whatever argument or issues you have with each other, nor do I have any worthwhile opinion in it. no need to give me anything.
Click to expand...


Well then why did you involve yourself?


----------



## lake avenue

ChrisL said:


> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worries. I figured you were full of shit anyways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The information is readily available on google.  Sorry if you don't know how to find information on your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the burden of proof lies on those making the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother if they ignore it?
> 
> Maybe you want to learn.  Here you go.
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in whatever argument or issues you have with each other, nor do I have any worthwhile opinion in it. no need to give me anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then why did you involve yourself?
Click to expand...

devil's advocate. making a side comment, etc.


----------



## ChrisL

lake avenue said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> The information is readily available on google.  Sorry if you don't know how to find information on your own.
> 
> 
> 
> the burden of proof lies on those making the claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why bother if they ignore it?
> 
> Maybe you want to learn.  Here you go.
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in whatever argument or issues you have with each other, nor do I have any worthwhile opinion in it. no need to give me anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then why did you involve yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> devil's advocate. making a side comment, etc.
Click to expand...


Oh, devil's advocate, huh?    Okay . . .


----------



## lake avenue

ChrisL said:


> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> the burden of proof lies on those making the claim.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother if they ignore it?
> 
> Maybe you want to learn.  Here you go.
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no interest in whatever argument or issues you have with each other, nor do I have any worthwhile opinion in it. no need to give me anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then why did you involve yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> devil's advocate. making a side comment, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, devil's advocate, huh?    Okay . . .
Click to expand...

Why is this such a common occurrence on these forums? A laugh at someone's post with no real content added to the discussion. What's the point in you even posting?


----------



## ChrisL

lake avenue said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why bother if they ignore it?
> 
> Maybe you want to learn.  Here you go.
> 
> Let me google that for you
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in whatever argument or issues you have with each other, nor do I have any worthwhile opinion in it. no need to give me anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well then why did you involve yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> devil's advocate. making a side comment, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, devil's advocate, huh?    Okay . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is this such a common occurrence on these forums? A laugh at someone's post with no real content added to the discussion. What's the point in you even posting?
Click to expand...


I have added to the discussion.  Don't know what you're talking about.  I was just acknowledging your off topic comment and unwillingness to participate in the discussion.


----------



## lake avenue

ChrisL said:


> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no interest in whatever argument or issues you have with each other, nor do I have any worthwhile opinion in it. no need to give me anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then why did you involve yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> devil's advocate. making a side comment, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, devil's advocate, huh?    Okay . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is this such a common occurrence on these forums? A laugh at someone's post with no real content added to the discussion. What's the point in you even posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have added to the discussion.  Don't know what you're talking about.  I was just acknowledging your off topic comment and unwillingness to participate in the discussion.
Click to expand...

What have you added to the discussion? _A shit post._ Spam. Literally _nothing_. Playing devils advocate is not an unwillingness to participate in the discussion, I am unwilling to participate in whatever past feuds you seem to have with each other. As if a smiley and 'Okay..' isn't off-topic lmfao


----------



## ChrisL

lake avenue said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then why did you involve yourself?
> 
> 
> 
> devil's advocate. making a side comment, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, devil's advocate, huh?    Okay . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is this such a common occurrence on these forums? A laugh at someone's post with no real content added to the discussion. What's the point in you even posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have added to the discussion.  Don't know what you're talking about.  I was just acknowledging your off topic comment and unwillingness to participate in the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devils advocate is not an unwillingness to participate in the discussion, I am unwilling to participate in whatever past feuds you seem to have with each other. As if a smiley and 'Okay..' isn't off-topic lmfao
Click to expand...


I'm not having a "feud."  Don't know what your issue is.  If you want to participate, then you can look at google.  It proves what I said that China stands in the way of sanctions.  NOW, do you have something to add?


----------



## Slyhunter

Care4all said:


> sanctions kill innocent people who have no say Chris, while the gvt officials bask in luxury....and continue to pursue their nuke goals.
> 
> Sanctions were a success in Iraq, eh?
> 
> Saddam and his fuel for food scam just made him richer...


Sanctions don't work when the players cheat the system. Russia, China, and others trade with these countries we have sanctions against making our sanctions worthless. That leaves us with no alternative but war.


----------



## Slyhunter

Roadrunner said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> They hide things, they lie, and they do not cooperate with inspectors.  As a matter of fact, they are STILL uncooperative.  Still think it's a good idea?
> 
> Iran isn t providing needed access or information nuclear watchdog says - The Washington Post
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/w...-evades-queries-on-possible-nuclear-work.html
> 
> IAEA s Yukiya Amano Says Organization Can t Verify Iran s Past Nuclear Activity - US News
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we need to blow them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama says we do not have the military means to "blow them up".
> 
> I saw it on CNN, and Wuff don't allow no lies.
Click to expand...

We have the MOAB, which can level a capital city into a parking lot.


----------



## ChrisL

Slyhunter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> sanctions kill innocent people who have no say Chris, while the gvt officials bask in luxury....and continue to pursue their nuke goals.
> 
> Sanctions were a success in Iraq, eh?
> 
> Saddam and his fuel for food scam just made him richer...
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions don't work when the players cheat the system. Russia, China, and others trade with these countries we have sanctions against making our sanctions worthless. That leaves us with no alternative but war.
Click to expand...


I agree with your first sentence, but not the second.  I think we could impose very tough sanctions and that we have leverage against China or whomever who violates those agreements.  

War should always be the absolute LAST alternative, IMO.


----------



## Faun

Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> Roadrunner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I do think it is STILL the better, and smarter OPTION.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not.  Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.  When the people have to choose between food and nuclear energy, they will choose food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flaw in that logic is that it's not a choice the people get to make.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite the full force of sanctions, Iran was still enriching Uranium.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then we need to blow them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama says we do not have the military means to "blow them up".
> 
> I saw it on CNN, and Wuff don't allow no lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have the MOAB, which can level a capital city into a parking lot.
Click to expand...

Hence, why Iran is desperately seeking a MOAB of their own.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.



Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.



Here's a good one . . . 

Getting China to Sanction Iran Foreign Affairs

Excerpt:

For more than three decades, the United States has tried to persuade the international community to counter the threat posed by Iran's Islamic regime. The results have often been underwhelming, with even Washington's closest allies resisting tough measures against Iran because of strategic considerations and commercial interests.

Recently, however, that landscape has changed. Last June, the United Nations Security Council penalized Tehran for failing to suspend its uranium-enrichment program by adopting strict new sanctions, including an arms embargo and tough restrictions on Iranian banks and the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Resolution 1929 also paved the way for individual states to adopt even more stringent penalties. Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, South Korea, and the European Union implemented unprecedented curbs on investment in Iran. The U.S. Congress passed new sanctions against any company selling gasoline to Iran or investing in Iran's refining capacity. Collectively, these measures have squeezed Iran's economy.

Yet one uncertainty still looms large: China's commitment to such policies. Driven by economic interests, as well as sympathy for Iran's grievances, China is the only major player still active in the Iranian oil patch. Whereas firms from most other countries have retreated due to international pressure and Iran's unfavorable business climate, China and its companies adhere only to the letter of Resolution 1929, which contains no explicit restrictions on energy investment or trade. China has thus emerged as the linchpin of the international sanctions regime against Iran and, by extension, of the effort to forestall Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
Click to expand...

Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.


----------



## Care4all

Slyhunter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> sanctions kill innocent people who have no say Chris, while the gvt officials bask in luxury....and continue to pursue their nuke goals.
> 
> Sanctions were a success in Iraq, eh?
> 
> Saddam and his fuel for food scam just made him richer...
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions don't work when the players cheat the system. Russia, China, and others trade with these countries we have sanctions against making our sanctions worthless. That leaves us with no alternative but war.
Click to expand...

And please explain to me why it is in America's best interest to send our children, father's brother's and sisters etc to DIE in this War of yours that you deem as necessary?  

And what is the end result that you see happening in this war of mere choice of yours?  Will the entire middle east magically become a land of milk and honey, with world peace and love abound after this war of yours?

Or will this lead to the continuation of perpetual war?


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.
Click to expand...


You see?  Now I just posted you a link.  You refuse to acknowledge it, so why should I bother?  You are obviously not capable of figuring things out on your own.  That's your problem if you just want to abide by whatever your government decides, right or wrong, because of your own partisanship.  

If you were to search, you could find PLENTY of information about how other countries have not cooperated with our sanctions.  This, in turn, makes them ineffective.  There are things we can use to our advantage to persuade them to join in on tough sanctions.  MONEY talks.


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a good one . . .
> 
> Getting China to Sanction Iran Foreign Affairs
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> For more than three decades, the United States has tried to persuade the international community to counter the threat posed by Iran's Islamic regime. The results have often been underwhelming, with even Washington's closest allies resisting tough measures against Iran because of strategic considerations and commercial interests.
> 
> Recently, however, that landscape has changed. Last June, the United Nations Security Council penalized Tehran for failing to suspend its uranium-enrichment program by adopting strict new sanctions, including an arms embargo and tough restrictions on Iranian banks and the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Resolution 1929 also paved the way for individual states to adopt even more stringent penalties. Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, South Korea, and the European Union implemented unprecedented curbs on investment in Iran. The U.S. Congress passed new sanctions against any company selling gasoline to Iran or investing in Iran's refining capacity. Collectively, these measures have squeezed Iran's economy.
> 
> Yet one uncertainty still looms large: China's commitment to such policies. Driven by economic interests, as well as sympathy for Iran's grievances, China is the only major player still active in the Iranian oil patch. Whereas firms from most other countries have retreated due to international pressure and Iran's unfavorable business climate, China and its companies adhere only to the letter of Resolution 1929, which contains no explicit restrictions on energy investment or trade. China has thus emerged as the linchpin of the international sanctions regime against Iran and, by extension, of the effort to forestall Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.
Click to expand...

Again, proving my point. When was UN resolution adopted? When did Iran start enriching Uranium?


----------



## Faun

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Now I just posted you a link.  You refuse to acknowledge it, so why should I bother?  You are obviously not capable of figuring things out on your own.  That's your problem if you just want to abide by whatever your government decides, right or wrong, because of your own partisanship.
> 
> If you were to search, you could find PLENTY of information about how other countries have not cooperated with our sanctions.  This, in turn, makes them ineffective.  There are things we can use to our advantage to persuade them to join in on tough sanctions.  MONEY talks.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I actually addressed it.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a good one . . .
> 
> Getting China to Sanction Iran Foreign Affairs
> 
> Excerpt:
> 
> For more than three decades, the United States has tried to persuade the international community to counter the threat posed by Iran's Islamic regime. The results have often been underwhelming, with even Washington's closest allies resisting tough measures against Iran because of strategic considerations and commercial interests.
> 
> Recently, however, that landscape has changed. Last June, the United Nations Security Council penalized Tehran for failing to suspend its uranium-enrichment program by adopting strict new sanctions, including an arms embargo and tough restrictions on Iranian banks and the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Resolution 1929 also paved the way for individual states to adopt even more stringent penalties. Australia, Canada, Japan, Norway, South Korea, and the European Union implemented unprecedented curbs on investment in Iran. The U.S. Congress passed new sanctions against any company selling gasoline to Iran or investing in Iran's refining capacity. Collectively, these measures have squeezed Iran's economy.
> 
> Yet one uncertainty still looms large: China's commitment to such policies. Driven by economic interests, as well as sympathy for Iran's grievances, China is the only major player still active in the Iranian oil patch. Whereas firms from most other countries have retreated due to international pressure and Iran's unfavorable business climate, China and its companies adhere only to the letter of Resolution 1929, which contains no explicit restrictions on energy investment or trade. China has thus emerged as the linchpin of the international sanctions regime against Iran and, by extension, of the effort to forestall Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, proving my point. When was UN resolution adopted? When did Iran start enriching Uranium?
Click to expand...


That's because countries do NOT abide by the sanctions, obviously.  IF they were, Iran would have no means to obtain such materials.  Do you understand that? Other countries like China lie and hide things too!  

Let me guess, you are going to claim that CHINA is honest now and that they hadn't been doing business with Iran all along?  Lol.


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.
Click to expand...

You're arguing a pointless technicality. Who cares if they created centrifuges first or if china violated sanctions first. Both were done, the order is immaterial.


----------



## Slyhunter

Care4all said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> sanctions kill innocent people who have no say Chris, while the gvt officials bask in luxury....and continue to pursue their nuke goals.
> 
> Sanctions were a success in Iraq, eh?
> 
> Saddam and his fuel for food scam just made him richer...
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions don't work when the players cheat the system. Russia, China, and others trade with these countries we have sanctions against making our sanctions worthless. That leaves us with no alternative but war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And please explain to me why it is in America's best interest to send our children, father's brother's and sisters etc to DIE in this War of yours that you deem as necessary?
> 
> And what is the end result that you see happening in this war of mere choice of yours?  Will the entire middle east magically become a land of milk and honey, with world peace and love abound after this war of yours?
> 
> Or will this lead to the continuation of perpetual war?
Click to expand...

The death of those wanting to spread their caliphate until the only ones left are the more reasonable ones.


----------



## Slyhunter

ChrisL said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Now I just posted you a link.  You refuse to acknowledge it, so why should I bother?  You are obviously not capable of figuring things out on your own.  That's your problem if you just want to abide by whatever your government decides, right or wrong, because of your own partisanship.
> 
> If you were to search, you could find PLENTY of information about how other countries have not cooperated with our sanctions.  This, in turn, makes them ineffective.  There are things we can use to our advantage to persuade them to join in on tough sanctions.  MONEY talks.
Click to expand...

Christ he's arguing a technicality trying to get you to prove that China's violating the sanctions allowed Iran to build the centrifuges. China violated the sanctions. Iran built the centrifuges. two items I don't care if one caused the other.


----------



## ChrisL

Slyhunter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Now I just posted you a link.  You refuse to acknowledge it, so why should I bother?  You are obviously not capable of figuring things out on your own.  That's your problem if you just want to abide by whatever your government decides, right or wrong, because of your own partisanship.
> 
> If you were to search, you could find PLENTY of information about how other countries have not cooperated with our sanctions.  This, in turn, makes them ineffective.  There are things we can use to our advantage to persuade them to join in on tough sanctions.  MONEY talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christ he's arguing a technicality trying to get you to prove that China's violating the sanctions allowed Iran to build the centrifuges. China violated the sanctions. Iran built the centrifuges. two items I don't care if one caused the other.
Click to expand...


And we give China money.    How stupid are we?


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board. If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.



We've had sanctions on Cuba for 55 years now, trying to get rid of Castro. 

Castro is still there. 

Sanctions don't work.  If anything, they strengthen dictatorships, because now any failure of the government to perform can be blamed on "those people".


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> Bullshit. I don't want to reform their culture. I just don't want US giving them the means to destruction.



Which we aren't.  But that's okay. 

You just want to whine about their "culture" to justify our bad behavior. 

History lesson. Iran had real Democracy once. And when they voted for a guy who wanted to spend Iran's oil wealth on Iran, the CIA and British Petroleum went in and toppled him and put the Shah in power. He proceeded to brutalize his people for 25 years.  

So I can see why Iran would want a "Don't Fuck with Me!" Weapon.  Which is what nukes are, really.


----------



## JoeB131

ChrisL said:


> And we give China money.  How stupid are we?



Extremely.  You whine about Iran executing homosexuals (who were probably child molestors, but never mind) but in China, you have mass executions, you have people being harvested for organs, you have prison camps for cheap labor, you have people being sent off to prison camps for tweeting bad things about the government. Women are forced to have abortions. 

And big corporations can't wait to ship jobs over there.


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> We have the MOAB, which can level a capital city into a parking lot.



Not really.  

You just don't know much about military stuff, do you?


----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Sanctions don't work when the players cheat the system. Russia, China, and others trade with these countries we have sanctions against making our sanctions worthless. That leaves us with no alternative but war.



NO, we have a perfectly good alternative to war. 

It's called "Minding your own fucking business". 

And 

"Stop letting the Zionists dictate our policy."


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Now I just posted you a link.  You refuse to acknowledge it, so why should I bother?  You are obviously not capable of figuring things out on your own.  That's your problem if you just want to abide by whatever your government decides, right or wrong, because of your own partisanship.
> 
> If you were to search, you could find PLENTY of information about how other countries have not cooperated with our sanctions.  This, in turn, makes them ineffective.  There are things we can use to our advantage to persuade them to join in on tough sanctions.  MONEY talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christ he's arguing a technicality trying to get you to prove that China's violating the sanctions allowed Iran to build the centrifuges. China violated the sanctions. Iran built the centrifuges. two items I don't care if one caused the other.
Click to expand...

Umm, it's not a "technicality." It's evidence that sanctions don'don't work. I understand it's a pesky little detail which hinders a perfectly good rant, but it demonstrates that despite sanctions, Iran still managed to enrich uranium. China doing business with Iran  *after* becomes nothing but a red herring to this argument. So what's a rightie like you to do with such information? Admit the sanctions failed to prevent Iran from forging ahead on their nuclear program or make up some dumbass excuse like ... _that's just a technicality. _


----------



## Slyhunter

JoeB131 said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board. If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've had sanctions on Cuba for 55 years now, trying to get rid of Castro.
> 
> Castro is still there.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.  If anything, they strengthen dictatorships, because now any failure of the government to perform can be blamed on "those people".
Click to expand...

Sanctions were never given a chance in Cuba. Cuba trades with Russia and tourist flock there for vacations.


----------



## lake avenue

ChrisL said:


> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> devil's advocate. making a side comment, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, devil's advocate, huh?    Okay . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is this such a common occurrence on these forums? A laugh at someone's post with no real content added to the discussion. What's the point in you even posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have added to the discussion.  Don't know what you're talking about.  I was just acknowledging your off topic comment and unwillingness to participate in the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devils advocate is not an unwillingness to participate in the discussion, I am unwilling to participate in whatever past feuds you seem to have with each other. As if a smiley and 'Okay..' isn't off-topic lmfao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not having a "feud."  Don't know what your issue is.  If you want to participate, then you can look at google.  It proves what I said that China stands in the way of sanctions.  NOW, do you have something to add?
Click to expand...

That's the point. Telling someone to go look at Google is inhibiting discussion and makes you look lazy. You spent extra posts telling him to just 'look it up' when you could have just have him a source. There's literally no reason for that besides you being an asshat.


----------



## lake avenue

Slyhunter said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions do work, especially when you can get everyone on board. If sanctions did NOT work, we would not bother with them and would have abandoned them long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've had sanctions on Cuba for 55 years now, trying to get rid of Castro.
> 
> Castro is still there.
> 
> Sanctions don't work.  If anything, they strengthen dictatorships, because now any failure of the government to perform can be blamed on "those people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sanctions were never given a chance in Cuba. Cuba trades with Russia and tourist flock there for vacations.
Click to expand...

Still a shit country, though.


----------



## ChrisL

lake avenue said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lake avenue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, devil's advocate, huh?    Okay . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Why is this such a common occurrence on these forums? A laugh at someone's post with no real content added to the discussion. What's the point in you even posting?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have added to the discussion.  Don't know what you're talking about.  I was just acknowledging your off topic comment and unwillingness to participate in the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Playing devils advocate is not an unwillingness to participate in the discussion, I am unwilling to participate in whatever past feuds you seem to have with each other. As if a smiley and 'Okay..' isn't off-topic lmfao
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not having a "feud."  Don't know what your issue is.  If you want to participate, then you can look at google.  It proves what I said that China stands in the way of sanctions.  NOW, do you have something to add?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the point. Telling someone to go look at Google is inhibiting discussion and makes you look lazy. You spent extra posts telling him to just 'look it up' when you could have just have him a source. There's literally no reason for that besides you being an asshat.
Click to expand...


Not at all.  I do that so that people cannot nit pick at the source.  This way you get to choose your own sources.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Now I just posted you a link.  You refuse to acknowledge it, so why should I bother?  You are obviously not capable of figuring things out on your own.  That's your problem if you just want to abide by whatever your government decides, right or wrong, because of your own partisanship.
> 
> If you were to search, you could find PLENTY of information about how other countries have not cooperated with our sanctions.  This, in turn, makes them ineffective.  There are things we can use to our advantage to persuade them to join in on tough sanctions.  MONEY talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christ he's arguing a technicality trying to get you to prove that China's violating the sanctions allowed Iran to build the centrifuges. China violated the sanctions. Iran built the centrifuges. two items I don't care if one caused the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, it's not a "technicality." It's evidence that sanctions don'don't work. I understand it's a pesky little detail which hinders a perfectly good rant, but it demonstrates that despite sanctions, Iran still managed to enrich uranium. China doing business with Iran  *after* becomes nothing but a red herring to this argument. So what's a rightie like you to do with such information? Admit the sanctions failed to prevent Iran from forging ahead on their nuclear program or make up some dumbass excuse like ... _that's just a technicality. _
Click to expand...


China and others, as my link states, have never cooperated with sanctions in 3 decades.


----------



## ChrisL

Faun said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can we just return to the forum discussion?  Which is Chris making up bullshit and then expecting others to hunt for answers with her Google search ... which actually proved you wrong. In case you forgot already, I asked you how did Russia and China interfere with sanctions which allowed Iran to begin enriching Uranium .... and you took me to a link about how China went against the sanctions *after* Iran had already begun enriching Uranium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at my google link.  There are MANY articles to choose from.  China and others interfere with sanctions and, of course, that makes them pretty much ineffective.  IF we could get them to cooperate, then sanctions would be much more effective.  Do you deny this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which is exactly the reason why chasing someone's Google searches is a waste of time. How many articles do you expect others to hunt through when you're inacapable of making a point? If you can prove your assertion, do so. So far, all you've done is corroborate my position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You see?  Now I just posted you a link.  You refuse to acknowledge it, so why should I bother?  You are obviously not capable of figuring things out on your own.  That's your problem if you just want to abide by whatever your government decides, right or wrong, because of your own partisanship.
> 
> If you were to search, you could find PLENTY of information about how other countries have not cooperated with our sanctions.  This, in turn, makes them ineffective.  There are things we can use to our advantage to persuade them to join in on tough sanctions.  MONEY talks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Christ he's arguing a technicality trying to get you to prove that China's violating the sanctions allowed Iran to build the centrifuges. China violated the sanctions. Iran built the centrifuges. two items I don't care if one caused the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm, it's not a "technicality." It's evidence that sanctions don'don't work. I understand it's a pesky little detail which hinders a perfectly good rant, but it demonstrates that despite sanctions, Iran still managed to enrich uranium. China doing business with Iran  *after* becomes nothing but a red herring to this argument. So what's a rightie like you to do with such information? Admit the sanctions failed to prevent Iran from forging ahead on their nuclear program or make up some dumbass excuse like ... _that's just a technicality. _
Click to expand...


Basically, you are trying to tell us is that we have no options, except helping Iran or going to war.  That is just not the case.  Sanctions haven't worked because of other countries not abiding by them.  I'm sure you are smart enough to figure that out.  Or maybe not.  Lol.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## JoeB131

Slyhunter said:


> Sanctions were never given a chance in Cuba. Cuba trades with Russia and tourist flock there for vacations.



How much trade do you think they are really doing with Russia, which is dirt poor itself. 

Uh, no, Sanctions don't work because PEOPLE DON'T LIKE FOREIGNERS TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Mano 10924470 





Manonthestreet said:


> Iran just declared Baghdad its capital of their empire. #10



When, where and by whom was this declaration made?


----------



## Ernie S.

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.


----------



## Care4all

Ernie S. said:


> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.


piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....


----------



## Slyhunter

H


Care4all said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
Click to expand...

how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?


----------



## Care4all

Slyhunter said:


> H
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?
Click to expand...

please answer my question first.


----------



## ScreamingEagle

JoeB131 said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sanctions were never given a chance in Cuba. Cuba trades with Russia and tourist flock there for vacations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How much trade do you think they are really doing with Russia, which is dirt poor itself.
> 
> Uh, no, Sanctions don't work because PEOPLE DON'T LIKE FOREIGNERS TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.
Click to expand...


you mean all those people don't like those foreign Iranian infiltrators telling them what to do either....?

wake up Joe....sanctions are simply a 'softer' form of war against totalitarians....


----------



## Slyhunter

Care4all said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> H
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please answer my question first.
Click to expand...

My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.


----------



## Care4all

Slyhunter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> H
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please answer my question first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.
Click to expand...

Have you read the deal, or at least read the parts that have been revealed to us?

If the outcome is just the same, with or without a deal....then why is one measure more harmful than the other?

For me, I subscribe to:  keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

It's better for us to have inspectors on the ground, than for us NOT to have them there.....it's better for us to have them turn over what enriched uranium they do have, than it is for us to get none of it from them at all....  it's better for the CIA to get in to their country with their undercover agents or moles....

Hands down, this is the BETTER OPTION of the lousy options there are...


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> H
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please answer my question first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.
Click to expand...

Completely demented thinking ... which is why conservatives think that way.

Let's say Iran continues to work towards developing nukes .... if there is no deal on the table, the build them but they have not violated any agreements; if there is a deal on the table, they've violated an agreement with 6 world powers who have agreed to use military force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.


----------



## Slyhunter

Care4all said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> H
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please answer my question first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the deal, or at least read the parts that have been revealed to us?
> 
> If the outcome is just the same, with or without a deal....then why is one measure more harmful than the other?
> 
> For me, I subscribe to:  keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
> 
> It's better for us to have inspectors on the ground, than for us NOT to have them there.....it's better for us to have them turn over what enriched uranium they do have, than it is for us to get none of it from them at all....  it's better for the CIA to get in to their country with their undercover agents or moles....
> 
> Hands down, this is the BETTER OPTION of the lousy options there are...
Click to expand...

It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

SlyH 11142177 





Slyhunter said:


> It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.



How do you propose that "we" replace their leaders?


----------



## Billo_Really

Slyhunter said:


> It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.


It's none of your god-damn business who their leaders are.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

SlyH 11141106 





Slyhunter said:


> My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.



How on earth do you think you know as a matter of fact that a deal doesn't stop them from building a nuclear bomb? If they comply for fifteen years - it will be irrelevant to speculate that they are building a nuclear weapon - if they violate the deal after cutting back on purity and production, their facilities are much more easily targeted for military action than they are today. So what's the point of bombing now or regime change now when it is possible that they actually do comply with the deal and see their economy improve by opening up?


----------



## Dot Com

This isn't going away anytime soon. It will haunt those RWNJ haters for so!e time to come

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk


----------



## Antares

Dot Com said:


> This isn't going away anytime soon. It will haunt those RWNJ haters for so!e time to come
> 
> Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk



Yeah much like the "Govt shutdown" did


----------



## Ernie S.

Care4all said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
Click to expand...

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?


----------



## Antares

Ernie S. said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
Click to expand...


Sowell is not the "right kind" of black man, he can think for himself so the Left ignores him.


----------



## Ernie S.

Slyhunter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> H
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> 
> 
> how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please answer my question first.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you read the deal, or at least read the parts that have been revealed to us?
> 
> If the outcome is just the same, with or without a deal....then why is one measure more harmful than the other?
> 
> For me, I subscribe to:  keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.
> 
> It's better for us to have inspectors on the ground, than for us NOT to have them there.....it's better for us to have them turn over what enriched uranium they do have, than it is for us to get none of it from them at all....  it's better for the CIA to get in to their country with their undercover agents or moles....
> 
> Hands down, this is the BETTER OPTION of the lousy options there are...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.
Click to expand...

It's even better if we replace OUR leaders with ones who will make a good deal


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> SlyH 11142177
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose that "we" replace their leaders?
Click to expand...

Boy we keep running in circles. Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

JH 10924504 





Jarhead said:


> Republicans are realists in this case. They know dam well an agreement made by Iran won’t be worth the paper it is written on....but the signature of a US President would force the US to abide by the terms.



What is 'real' about speculating based upon political bias regarding what might or might not happen in the future? Second question is why does the signature of a US President force the US to abide by the terms of the agreement if Iraq violates the agreement. Obama says if Iran tries to break out and start making a nuclear bomb the US has the option that they always have of bombing their nuclear facilities? The US only abides by the agreement if Iran complies fully with the agreement. The
'signature of a US President' part of your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11143700 





Ernie S. said:


> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?  #3557



BULL !!!  This one on your side is advocating that the US President orders the USAF to commit Mass Murder.

11143961





Slyhunter said:


> Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.#3560



That's not a 'good agreement' is it?

Do you condemn calling for America and the US Air Force to commit mass murder as Slyhunter is doing? Tell us what you think and then I'll get to your argument that what is on the table is not a good agreement?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11143744 





Ernie S. said:


> It's even better if we replace OUR leaders with ones who will make a good deal #3559



Do you support Republican Senator Rand Paul or Scott Walker on the Iranian deal? How do you know any of the Republican hopefuls could actually hold the P5+1 and UNSC together to re-impose sanctions even when and if Iraq complies with the deal over the next two years and then toward the later stages 15 years from now. Not all sanctions are lifted immediately anyway - what did Reagan say - trust by verify.

Walker is a nut-job neocon on Iran negotiations. The French, Germans and Brits need to hear what this whacko said and knock him down if he ever gets close to winning the GOP nomination.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11143700
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?  #3557
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BULL !!!  This one on your side is advocating that the US President orders the USAF to commit Mass Murder.
> 
> 11143961
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.#3560
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not a 'good agreement' is it?
> 
> Do you condemn the America and the US Air Force committing mass murder as Slyhunter is doing? Tell us what you think and then I'll get to your argument that what is on the table is not a good agreement?
Click to expand...

War should always be the last option on the table, but it should *always* be on the table.
Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
If diplomacy fails, it fails. If we need to go to war, so be it. I say we fight to win. No more stand offs like we have played since 1945. We WIN!


----------



## Ernie S.

I've not read Paul or Walker's comments.

I simply contend that barack obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran. He doesn't have the balls.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11144938 





Ernie S. said:


> Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.  #3564



That is exactly the position of the P5+1 countries which included the US of course. IF Republicans and a few Democrats screw up this deal, those other five countries most likely don't go back to sanctions as they've held together since 2012. Then there is 'no deal' and not much chance for the US to negotiate a 'good deal' on its own. Netanyahu wants Iraq to have no peaceful nuclear power at all. If that is what you think is an obtainable deal with Iran without war you have not thought this through very well.

So you are not disgusted by SLYHUNTER enough to renounce his murderous plan. I see?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11144949 





Ernie S. said:


> He doesn't have the balls. #3566



That is quite the ignorant argument. You don't have much education or curiosity on the subject do you?. Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan his first year in office during the first year of recovery from the worst recession that hit under GW Bush.

Obama ordered the largest US Marines air to ground assault in May 2009 since the Vietnam war into Helmand and Kandahar Province in Afghanistan to secure the election in 2010.

Obama has ordered more air strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda and Daesh than any President in US history.

He stood up to Maliki and got him out of office by peaceful means.  His predecessor was pushed around by Maliki for two years. He sent the Navy Seals into Pakistan to get OBL. He forced Putin and Assad to give up 1300 Tons of chemical weapons that would have been a threat to Israel had Daesh terrorist scum gained access to them during the civil war in Syria.

We had a President that Republicans think had balls for eight years.  No thanks on using that as criteria for a US President specifically combined with having no brains.


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have the balls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is quite the ignorant argument. You don't have much education or curiosity on the subject. Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan his first year in office during the first year of recovery from the worst recession that hit under GW Bush.
> 
> Obama ordered the largest US Marines air to ground assault in May 2009 since the Vietnam war into Helmand and Kandahar Province in Afghanistan to secure the election in 2010.
> 
> Obama has ordered more air strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda and Daesh than any President in US history.
> 
> He stood up to Maliki and got him out of office by peaceful means.  His predecessor was pushed around by Maliki for two years. He sent the Navy Seals into Pakistan to get OBL. He forced Putin and Assad to give up 1300 Tons of chemical weapons that would have been a threat to Israel had Daesh terrorist scum gained access to them during the civil war in Syria.
> 
> We had a President that Republicans think had balls for eight years.  No thanks on using that as criteria for a US President specifically combined with having no brains.
Click to expand...


Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power, He also abandon Iraq and allowed the terrorist scum Isis to gain in strength and power before he did anything.He's allowed Iran to spread it power and influence into Iraq, Yemen, Syria, throughout the region, he likes them, Obama also backed the muslim brotherhood take over of Egypt. Thank G-d Sisi got rid of them, against the wishes of our idiot president. The entire middle east is on fire, because of the incompetence of this pathetic, poor excuse for a president, but you love him because you're a fellow idiot


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11144949 





Ernie S. said:


> I've not read Paul or Walker's comments.I simply contend that barack obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran.



You "simply" contend that Obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran, yet you don't keep up with the opposition leadership has to say about reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran or reaching no deal with Iran. How do you know what a 'satisfactory deal' is and whether a Republican can come up with something better. Odds are they can't and won't then the primary option will have to be war. And you claim war should be the last resort. Your are not making much sense here even under this immediate observation.


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11144949
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not read Paul or Walker's comments.I simply contend that barack obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "simply" contend that Obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran, yet you don't keep up with the opposition leadership has to say about reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran or reaching no deal with Iran. How do you know what a 'satisfactory deal' is and whether a Republican can come up with something better. Odds are they can't and won't then the primary option will have to be war. And you claim war should be the last resort. Your are not making much sense here even under this immediate observation.
Click to expand...

There is no deal you moron Obama is incompetent understand?


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11144938
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.  #3564
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the position of the P5+1 countries which included the US of course. IF Republicans and a few Democrats screw up this deal, those other five countries most likely don't go back to sanctions as they've held together since 2012. Then there is 'no deal' and not much chance for the US to negotiate a 'good deal' on its own. Netanyahu wants Iraq to have no peaceful nuclear power at all. If that is what you think is an obtainable deal with Iran without war you have not thought this through very well.
> 
> So you are not disgusted by SLYHUNTER enough to renounce his murderous plan. I see?
Click to expand...

A plan of last resort, as I said. War is murderous. It's horrible and should be, but once engages in, you must fight to win.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11144949
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've not read Paul or Walker's comments.I simply contend that barack obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You "simply" contend that Obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran, yet you don't keep up with the opposition leadership has to say about reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran or reaching no deal with Iran. How do you know what a 'satisfactory deal' is and whether a Republican can come up with something better. Odds are they can't and won't then the primary option will have to be war. And you claim war should be the last resort. Your are not making much sense here even under this immediate observation.
Click to expand...

I don't have to know what Walker and Paul are saying to know they can come up with a better deal. I've been watching obama fuck up everything he does for six years and conclude that my 12 year old Bichon Frise  Bert could negotiate a better deal than President obama


----------



## Care4all

Ernie S. said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
Click to expand...

what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???  

Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?

Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....


----------



## Ernie S.

Care4all said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???
Click to expand...

Truthfully, pretty much. Again, I have seen nothing in the last 6 years that would indicate that barack obama is capable of tying his own shoes.





> Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?


 A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.





> Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....



Suppose you tell me what obama and Kerry will settle for and how they intend to enforce an agreement with a country who is historically incapable of abiding by agreements.


----------



## Slyhunter

Care4all said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???
> 
> Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?
> 
> Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....
Click to expand...

A good agreement is one that guarantees that Iran won't build any nukes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jroc said:


> Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power,





Ernie S. said:


> A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
> No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.



If you call for "No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING" you are nearly all alone in the world of nations. Therefore you are not for a good deal - you are for NO DEAL  - you are for war as the first resort. You can fool no one with your doublesspeak.


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
> No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you call for "No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING" you are nearly all alone in the world of nations. Therefore you are not for a good deal - you are for NO DEAL  - you are for war as the first resort. You can fool no one with your doublesspeak.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
> No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you call for "No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING" you are nearly all alone in the world of nations*. Therefore you are not for a good deal - you are for NO DEAL  - you are for war as the first resort. You can fool no one with your doublesspeak.
Click to expand...



Absolutly, that used to be Obama's position, but you're an idiot and don't even realize it


----------



## Jroc

Care4all said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???
> 
> Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?
> 
> Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....
Click to expand...


What a bunch of sheep, there is no "deal" and there will only be a "deal" after congress approves the final agreement. if not there will be no deal understand?


----------



## Care4all

Slyhunter said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???
> 
> Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?
> 
> Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A good agreement is one that guarantees that Iran won't build any nukes.
Click to expand...

And your plan to accomplish this is WHAT? Tell us all this ingenious and PERFECT plan of yours (gop's) to accomplish this feat of yours....

This is just partisan mouthing off from the Peanut Gallery....  AGAIN from the Do Nothings in congress....


----------



## Care4all

Jroc said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???
> 
> Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?
> 
> Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a bunch of sheep, there is no "deal" and there will only be a "deal" after congress approves the final agreement. if not there will be no deal understand?
Click to expand...

Nope!
This is an executive agreement and NOT a treaty, so the Senate does NOT have to pass it with 2/3rds vote....at least this is how it has worked WITH ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS....

understand?


----------



## Jroc

Care4all said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???
> 
> Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?
> 
> Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A good agreement is one that guarantees that Iran won't build any nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your plan to accomplish this is WHAT? Tell us all this ingenious and PERFECT plan of yours (gop's) to accomplish this feat of yours....
> 
> This is just partisan mouthing off from the Peanut Gallery....  AGAIN from the Do Nothings in congress....
Click to expand...



again little sheep there will be no deal without the approval of congress and if getting something done means Iq getting tens of billions of dollars supporting terrorist around the world developing intercontinental missiles and continuing to develop nukes I choose that


----------



## Jroc

Care4all said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???
> 
> Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?
> 
> Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a bunch of sheep, there is no "deal" and there will only be a "deal" after congress approves the final agreement. if not there will be no deal understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope!
> This is an executive agreement and NOT a treaty, so the Senate does NOT have to pass it with 2/3rds vote....at least this is how it has worked WITH ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS....
> 
> understand?
Click to expand...



Wrong girl, Obama is not  dictator, and as no power to enter into any treaty with out approval from congress, even democrats in congress know this. You're not too bright, any thinking person would not want this clueless person, to be able to have the fate of this country in his hands, even after he leaves office in less than two years. that says a lot about people like you


----------



## Slyhunter

Care4all said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Peace for our time"
> 
> From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."
> 
> Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.
> 
> Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.
> 
> Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."
> 
> After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.
> 
> Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> piss and vinegar article imho....  with no solutions....
> 
> how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?
> 
> how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel?  Be specific please....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a *good* agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP?  Anything Obama didn't make...???
> 
> Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?
> 
> Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A good agreement is one that guarantees that Iran won't build any nukes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And your plan to accomplish this is WHAT? Tell us all this ingenious and PERFECT plan of yours (gop's) to accomplish this feat of yours....
> 
> This is just partisan mouthing off from the Peanut Gallery....  AGAIN from the Do Nothings in congress....
Click to expand...

I repeat, they either make a good deal or we start killing the ones in charge in their capital buildings and in their homes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

SH 11146134 





Slyhunter said:


> Bullshit



Your lack of intelligence on this topic has now overpowered your ability to respond. That is not an argument against my point. Its nothing at all.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
> No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you call for "No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING" you are nearly all alone in the world of nations. Therefore you are not for a good deal - you are for NO DEAL  - you are for war as the first resort. You can fool no one with your doublesspeak.
Click to expand...

So, you want Iran to possess the capability to build a nuclear bomb and promise not to.

Where have you seen any indication that Iran should be trusted to abide by an agreement?
Where have you seen evidence that obama has the balls to enforce such an agreement?
Where do you buy your meth?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jroc 11146602 





Jroc said:


> ... there will be no deal without the approval of congress...



The first part of your reply is false since there are five other major powers involved in the framework to complete the deal that limits quite strongly Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. The US is not the sole player in this deal. 

Dems will not support a Republican last minute bombing of the deal if you listen closely to what Senators like Tim Kaine are saying. The Dems will force the Republicans to water down whatever the hard right Republicans want to pass against this deal. Dems won't agree to support a bill that the President would have to veto. 

Dems won't embarrass America in the eyes of the world by sabotaging the final agreement that is put in writing, because the framework laid out is a pretty good deal that most of the nations in the world support.


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> Jroc 11146602
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... there will be no deal without the approval of congress...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first part of your reply is false since there are five other major powers involved in the framework to complete the deal that limits quite strongly Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. The US is not the sole player in this deal.
> 
> Dems will not support a Republican last minute bombing of the deal if you listen closely to what Senators like Tim Kaine are saying. The Dems will force the Republicans to water down whatever the hard right Republicans want to pass against this deal. Dems won't agree to support a bill that the President would have to veto.
> 
> Dems won't embarrass America in the eyes of the world by sabotaging the final agreement that is put in writing, because the framework laid out is a pretty good deal that most of the nations in the world support.
Click to expand...

The world doesnt make our foreign policy and they don't control our government even though you leftist would like that to be the case


----------



## Ernie S.

Fuck 5 other countries. If they want to make a deal with Iran, it's on them. They are closer and would be easier targets.
obama needs to grow a set and stand up to these pigs.


----------



## Statistikhengst

Ernie S. said:


> Fuck 5 other countries. If they want to make a deal with Iran, it's on them. They are closer and would be easier targets.
> obama needs to grow a set and stand up to these pigs.



China, France, Russia, the UK and Germany are pigs?!?!?!?!?

Put the bong down. Walk away....


----------



## eagle1462010

Only a Fool would make an agreement with a country that you know will never keep it's word............They will Lie their asses and say whatever they need to say to get the Sanctions lifted...........Already European business are ready to jump into bed with them on economic deals............probably helping them get necessary items to help in getting the bomb.

A week before the SO called DEAL..............they were chanting DEATH TO AMERICA again.............and only a FOOL would still negotiate with them when they chanting this....................

During both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars...........one still going............the Iranians were arming, training and funding our enemies.  Specifically with advanced IED's.................70% of KIA's died from IED's..................with those being disarmed and captured regularily coming from IRAN..............

aka These Assholes sent a lot of our people home in a box...................

You don't cut a Paper Deal with these types............Oh if they break it........they'll get a PAPER CUT............

Iran will never honor their word................so keep Sanctions as harsh as possible...........and make it harder for them to get the Nuke..............It's a hell of a lot better than a piece of paper that will mean NOTHING IN THE END.

BTW..............Which part of the deal makes them stop funding Terrorist Orgs in the region.................This isn't even on the dang table................What a BS deal.


----------



## Statistikhengst

All those ellipses.....

....and still you make no sense at all....


----------



## eagle1462010

Statistikhengst said:


> All those ellipses.....
> 
> ....and still you make no sense at all....


You talking to me Stat


----------



## Statistikhengst

eagle1462010 said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those ellipses.....
> 
> ....and still you make no sense at all....
> 
> 
> 
> You talking to me Stat
Click to expand...



Yes....

....I know....

...and you know..... that I know....


----------



## eagle1462010

Statistikhengst said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> All those ellipses.....
> 
> ....and still you make no sense at all....
> 
> 
> 
> You talking to me Stat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes....
> 
> ....I know....
> 
> ...and you know..... that I know....
Click to expand...

Just want to clear that up................

Tell me about these ellipses.................

How is it an ellipse that Iran helped kill our people..............I've shown that data over and over again on other threads..........maybe hear haven't posted on this one much lately.  Either way........I've shown the data............and your argument is IT'S AN ELLIPSE..............

Chanting Death to America..................Ellipse...................LOL

Not forcing part of the deal to include to stop funding Terrorist groups.....................Oh..........another Ellipse....................

During the Iraq War..................under Bush...........they got the Iranians to agree to stop giving the IED weapons and tech...........to the insurgents........................Didn't work...........they kept doing it..................

Statist you and your ilk are FOOLS......................and if it makes you feel better you are an Elliptical Idiot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jroc 11148162 





Jroc said:


> The world doesn't make our foreign policy and they don't control our government even though you leftist would like that to be the case



I didnt make an argument that the world makes our foreign policy and control our government. Who are those 'leftists' you are ridiculously imagining in your head and arguing with? 

Go back and read my posts. If you need help with your comprehension just ask for help. I'll be happy to oblige. 

This is not to difficult to understand;

"The first part of your reply is false since there are five other major powers involved in the framework to complete the deal that limits quite strongly Iran's ability to build a nuclear weapon. The US is not the sole player in this deal."

Its called stating the facts. Six countries are involved in this deal. Can you refute that fact?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11148260 





Ernie S. said:


> Fuck 5 other countries. If they want to make a deal with Iran, it's on them. They are closer and would be easier targets.
> obama needs to grow a set and stand up to these pigs.



For one who favors war instead of negotiating a reasonable and realistic detail you express much hatred for potential allies.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11148260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck 5 other countries. If they want to make a deal with Iran, it's on them. They are closer and would be easier targets.
> obama needs to grow a set and stand up to these pigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one who favors war instead of negotiating a reasonable and realistic detail you express much hatred for potential allies.
Click to expand...

Look buddy...................I'm from the UN and if you don't watch it...............I'm going to send you another sharply worded warning....................

Right now............we'll only just punish you if you don't comply.............keep it up................and we'll REALLY REALLY PUNISH YOU......................


----------



## NotfooledbyW

JH 10925798 





Jarhead said:


> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...



You are assuming the potential treaty is not a good one. What makes you right and anyone that sees the serious value in extending Iran's 'break-out' time from three months to a year as plenty of time to bomb any suspected sites where violations by Iran of the deal would be necessary to deny Iraq the ability to make a nuclear weapon. If they don't try to break out for fifteen years - this turns out to be a very good deal. Unless you prefer bombing first only to stop Iran from having nuclear power for peaceful purposes.


----------



## Ernie S.

Statistikhengst said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck 5 other countries. If they want to make a deal with Iran, it's on them. They are closer and would be easier targets.
> obama needs to grow a set and stand up to these pigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> China, France, Russia, the UK and Germany are pigs?!?!?!?!?
> 
> Put the bong down. Walk away....
Click to expand...

Did I say that? We are talking about Iran here.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11148260
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck 5 other countries. If they want to make a deal with Iran, it's on them. They are closer and would be easier targets.
> obama needs to grow a set and stand up to these pigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For one who favors war instead of negotiating a reasonable and realistic detail you express much hatred for potential allies.
Click to expand...

Another fool who has forgotten who the thread is about.
Complete with another lie.
As has been made clear to you several times, I do NOT favor war over negotiating. What I favor is negotiations that produce the right results. NOTHING I have seen from barack obama in the last 6 years would lead me to believe he will come up with a good agreement. Further, NOTHING I have seen from IRAN for the last 40 years would lead me to believe that Iran would abide by even a bad agreement.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> JH 10925798
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming the treaty is a good one...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are assuming the potential treaty is not a good one. What makes you right and anyone that sees the serious value in extending Iran's 'break-out' time from three months to a year as plenty of time to bomb any suspected sites where violations by Iran of the deal would be necessary to deny Iraq the ability to make a nuclear weapon. If they don't try to break out for fifteen years - this turns out to be a very good deal. Unless you prefer bombing first only to stop Iran from having nuclear power for peaceful purposes.
Click to expand...

Your practice of fucking with the quotes is annoying, but not so annoying as your dishonesty and ignorance.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11152960 





Ernie S. said:


> Your practice of fucking with the quotes is annoying, but not so annoying as your dishonesty and ignorance.




The full quote is always a mouse click away. I highlight the exact statements that rightwinger's bury amidst much of what us nental garbage.

I change no meaning or authors intent - If I did any rightwinger could point it out and they never successfully do.

Your being annoyed is much more Realtek to not having a plausible argument for the horrible thoughts that dance in your head. 

Point out what exactly you think I've written that is ignorant or dishonest. You can't do that either. 

I call this type of desperate post of yours "running from the discussion". 

It was only a matter of time until you did it.


Your confession that you only would accept a deal that forces Iran to give up all peaceful use of nuclear power is never going to happen. The only way to achieve that us by going to war with Iran. 

You are for war - That truth hurts doesn't it?


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11152960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your practice of fucking with the quotes is annoying, but not so annoying as your dishonesty and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full quote is always a mouse click away. I highlight the exact statements that rightwinger's bury amidst much of what us nental garbage.
> 
> I change no meaning or authors intent - If I did any rightwinger could point it out and they never successfully do.
> 
> Your being annoyed is much more Realtek to not having a plausible argument for the horrible thoughts that dance in your head.
> 
> Point out what exactly you think I've written that is ignorant or dishonest. You can't do that either.
> 
> I call this type of desperate post of yours "running from the discussion".
> 
> It was only a matter of time until you did it.
> 
> 
> Your confession that you only would accept a deal that forces Iran to give up all peaceful use of nuclear power is never going to happen. The only way to achieve that us by going to war with Iran.
> 
> You are for war - That truth hurts doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Peaceful use of Nuclear Power............Funny bed fellows your side keeps.............You fight tooth and nail here for more nuclear power plants, but now are the poster children for Promoting Nuclear Power...............

LOL

Iran doesn't need nuclear power to power their country...........unless you believe you are Alice in Wonderland......................

They have one intent............same as North Korea did.............no piece of paper is going to change that.............no agreement will change their ambitions..................

Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them................

and people like you want to cut a deal..................

Jeff Foxworthy has a sign for you.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11152960
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your practice of fucking with the quotes is annoying, but not so annoying as your dishonesty and ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full quote is always a mouse click away. I highlight the exact statements that rightwinger's bury amidst much of what us nental garbage.
> 
> I change no meaning or authors intent - If I did any rightwinger could point it out and they never successfully do.
> 
> Your being annoyed is much more Realtek to not having a plausible argument for the horrible thoughts that dance in your head.
> 
> Point out what exactly you think I've written that is ignorant or dishonest. You can't do that either.
> 
> I call this type of desperate post of yours "running from the discussion".
> 
> It was only a matter of time until you did it.
> 
> 
> Your confession that you only would accept a deal that forces Iran to give up all peaceful use of nuclear power is never going to happen. The only way to achieve that us by going to war with Iran.
> 
> You are for war - That truth hurts doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Call my post whatever you want. I have NOT run from you or anyone EVER. You mischaracterize my position as wanting war. The fact that war is a possible result of Iran not agreeing to give up their quest for nuclear weapons is on Iran and is not in any way, shape or form the same as me advocating war. It is more a part of a negotiation that is more likely to produce the results I would be happy with.
So, You are a liar. The truth hurts, doesn't it.

And STOP fucking with the damned quotes!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11152946 





Ernie S. said:


> Did I say that? We are talking about Iran here.



Iran is singular. The other five countries are plural. You opened your paragraph referring to "five other countries" saying "fuck them". I read that as you were calling our P5+1 partners "pigs" also. Pigs is plural.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11155129 





Ernie S. said:


> You mischaracterize my position as wanting war. The fact that war is a possible result of Iran not agreeing to give up their quest for nuclear weapons is on Iran and is not in any way, shape or form the same as me advocating war



You said you would only accept a deal whereby Iran gives up all peaceful nuclear activities. That is a recipe for war.  This deal is forcing Iran to prove it has no nuclear weapons ambitions. 

I have not mischaracterized anything you've written.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11152946
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say that? We are talking about Iran here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran is singular. The other five countries are plural. You opened your paragraph referring to "five other countries" saying "fuck them". I read that as you were calling our P5+1 partners "pigs" also. Pigs is plural.
Click to expand...

Iran has about 80 million (thus plural) pigs living there. I have no grief with P5+1, have not discussed or even mentioned them. It should have been evident from what I had written to that point that I detest and distrust the Iranian government. Only a fool would have assumed "pigs" was meant for P5+1.


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11155129
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mischaracterize my position as wanting war. The fact that war is a possible result of Iran not agreeing to give up their quest for nuclear weapons is on Iran and is not in any way, shape or form the same as me advocating war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you would only accept a deal whereby Iran gives up all peaceful nuclear activities. That is a recipe for war.  This deal is forcing Iran to prove it has no nuclear weapons ambitions.
> 
> I have not mischaracterized anything you've written.
Click to expand...

No! It is a recipe for Iran to capitulate if they wish to avoid war. It is also a very strong starting point to negotiations, not an ultimatum that the bombing will start tomorrow.

If you don't understand my position now, please avoid further response. I refuse to engage idiots and the intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11155129
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mischaracterize my position as wanting war. The fact that war is a possible result of Iran not agreeing to give up their quest for nuclear weapons is on Iran and is not in any way, shape or form the same as me advocating war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You said you would only accept a deal whereby Iran gives up all peaceful nuclear activities. That is a recipe for war.  This deal is forcing Iran to prove it has no nuclear weapons ambitions.
> 
> I have not mischaracterized anything you've written.
Click to expand...

If they didn't put on chants of death to america or death to israel we might not need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. But they do.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11155887 





Ernie S. said:


> No! It is a recipe for Iran to capitulate if they wish to avoid war. It is also a very strong starting point to negotiations, not an ultimatum that the bombing will start tomorrow.



Negotiations don't start at your starting point. The world has traveled past your starting point years ago. To demand they cease all peaceful nuclear activity at this point means you will bomb them if they don't stop doing what was only acceptable to you.

Did you write this?

Erni 11145320 





Ernie S. said:


> A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
> No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.



What are your "serious consequences" if not 'WAR' to stop all enrichment - to take out all centrifuges - to force them to fill in underground bunkers.

You are not backing up your 'starting point' with anything unless you mean to stop all those things by use of force. You are engaged in meaningless negotiations if you can't back up your starting point demands.

In post 155887 your are threatening war unless they capitulate to your specific demands.Are you going to capitulate on those demands after threatening war to enforce them? Where do you stop capitulating if war is a last resort in your mind?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11156698 





Slyhunter said:


> If they didn't put on chants of death to america or death to israel we might not need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. But they do.



If they didn't put on chants of death to America or death to Israel we would definitely still need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. The Iranians say they are not interested in producing nuclear weapons, there is no reason to trust them. They have to prove it as this deal would force them to do.


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> Slyh 11156698
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't put on chants of death to america or death to israel we might not need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. But they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they didn't put on chants of death to America or death to Israel we would definitely still need proof of lack of nuclear ambitions. The Iranians say they are not interested in producing nuclear weapons, there is no reason to trust them. They have to prove it as this deal would force them to do.
Click to expand...




LOL..what deal? Iran's deal?or Obama's deal?


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Erni 11155887
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No! It is a recipe for Iran to capitulate if they wish to avoid war. It is also a very strong starting point to negotiations, not an ultimatum that the bombing will start tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negotiations don't start at your starting point. The world has traveled past your starting point years ago. To demand they cease all peaceful nuclear activity at this point means you will bomb them if they don't stop doing what was only acceptable to you.
> 
> Did you write this?
> 
> Erni 11145320
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
> No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are your "serious consequences" if not 'WAR' to stop all enrichment - to take out all centrifuges - to force them to fill in underground bunkers.
> 
> You are not backing up your 'starting point' with anything unless you mean to stop all those things by use of force. You are engaged in meaningless negotiations if you can't back up your starting point demands.
> 
> In post 155887 your are threatening war unless they capitulate to your specific demands.Are you going to capitulate on those demands after threatening war to enforce them? Where do you stop capitulating if war is a last resort in your mind?
Click to expand...

You are either talking in circles intentionally, or you can't comprehend what I am saying. I'm done with you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ernie S. said:


> You are either talking in circles intentionally, or you can't comprehend what I am saying. I'm done with you.




I thought you said you don't run from a discussion - the points I've made are not running in circles. It is a straight line of fact.  Your "starting point" for "good negotiations"  (no nuclear enrichment - nothing nuclear in Iran ) comes with the threat of war if they don't capitulate on that. I asked if you would  capitulate on your demand that Iran cease all peaceful nuclear activity and instead of answering you pull the "running in circles" stunt. You cannot answer the question - the definitive conclusion has to be that you have chosen to capitulate (run) from our discussion instead.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11159487 





Jroc said:


> LOL..what deal? Iran's deal?or Obama's deal?



You've all been complaining and shivering in fear that Obama would strike a weak deal with Iran. Now you are complaining that Obama has laid a framework for a deal that is too strong for Iran to accept. And you suddenly are quoting Iran's leaders as the one's telling the truth just to call our President a liar based on trusting the Iranians speaking  the truth.  What's up with that? Could you make up your mind please?


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11159487
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL..what deal? Iran's deal?or Obama's deal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've all been complaining and shivering in fear that Obama would strike a weak deal with Iran. Now you are complaining that Obama has laid a framework for a deal that is too strong for Iran to accept. And you suddenly are quoting Iran's leaders as the one's telling the truth just to call our President a liar based on trusting the Iranians speaking  the truth.  What's up with that? Could you make up your mind please?
Click to expand...

A deal means the two sides agree on something, obviously they don't. Obama is attempting this capitulation for his legacy. He's a weak president and they know it. Too bad you libs just can't come to grips with that fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

11160679 





Jroc said:


> A deal means the two sides agree on something, obviously they don't



It is the Iranians who want sanctions lifted immediately upon signing the deal. That is not the agreement the P5+1 settled on. So Obama's position is too strong and intrusive for the Iranian side. Why are you not in agreement with Obama that there must be specified actions taken by Iran before lifting of sanctions would phased in gradually?


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> 11160679
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> A deal means the two sides agree on something, obviously they don't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Iranians who want sanctions lifted immediately upon signing the deal. That is not the agreement the P5+1 settled on. So Obama's position is too strong and intrusive for the Iranian side. Why are you not in agreement with Obama that there must be specified actions taken by Iran before lifting of sanctions would phased in gradually?
Click to expand...


Iran toys with your pathetic president.The sooner you come to grips with that fact, the sooner you'll be living in the real world.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jroc said:


> Iran toys with your pathetic president.



How on earth do you reach such a conclusion that Iran is toying with President Obama? Iran's economy is struggling. They need sanctions lifted. Obama and the rest of the P5+1 are not going to lift sanctions the minute Iran signs a deal.  Iran needs sanctions lifted. Who is really being toyed with?


----------



## Statistikhengst

NotfooledbyW said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran toys with your pathetic president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you reach such a conclusion that Iran is toying with President Obama? Iran's economy is struggling. They need sanctions lifted. Obama and the rest of the P5+1 are not going to lift sanctions the minute Iran signs a deal.  Iran needs sanctions lifted. Who is really being toyed with?
Click to expand...



Pssst. You are ruining their Wingnuttia Unincornland purple cotton-candy fantasies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Murder He Wrote:*

Slyh 11143961 





Slyhunter said:


> Moab their capital buildings and their private homes. #3560



*“The Mother of All Bombs” (MOAB) Slated to be Used ... *www.globalresearch.ca/the-mother-of-all-*bombs*-*moab*.../5333811    May 3, 2013 - The MOP [_*Mother of All Bombs*_] is the weapon of choice to meet the requirements of the UON [Urgent Operational Need].”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Erni 11140511 





Ernie S. said:


> "Peace for our time"  From Thomas Sowell:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.
> 
> 
> 
> #3543
Click to expand...


Do you have any data that President Obama is 'tearing America's military forces down'? Or do you just swallow whatever a lunatic fringe right wing pundit puts in writing even if it makes no sense?

*Military Aircraft* *Iran has 471*
13900 US
    936 UK
  1264 France
    663 Germany

What did Germany have in 1939?



> It was the qualitative superiority of the German infantry divisions and the number of their armoured divisions that made the difference in 1939. The firepower of a German infantry division far exceeded that of a French, British, or Polish division; the standard German division included 442 machine guns, 135 mortars, 72 antitank guns, and 24 howitzers. Allied divisions had a firepower only slightly greater than that of World War I. Germany had six armoured divisions in September 1939; the Allies, though they had a large number of tanks, had no armoured divisions at that time.
> 
> The six armoured, or panzer, divisions of the Wehrmacht comprised some 2,400 tanks. And though Germany would subsequently expand its tank forces during the first years of the war, it was not the number of tanks that Germany had (the Allies had almost as many in September 1939) but the fact of their being organized into divisions and operated as such that was to prove decisive. In accordance with the doctrines of General Heinz Guderian, the German tanks were used in massed formations in conjunction with motorized artillery to punch holes in the enemy line and to isolate segments of the enemy, which were then surrounded and captured by motorized German infantry divisions while the tanks ranged forward to repeat the process: deep drives into enemy territory by panzer divisions were thus followed by mechanized infantry and foot soldiers. These tactics were supported by dive bombers that attacked and disrupted the enemy’s supply and communications lines and spread panic and confusion in its rear, thus further paralyzing its defensive capabilities. Mechanization was the key to the German blitzkrieg, or “lightning war,” so named because of the unprecedented speed and mobility that were its salient characteristics. Tested and well-trained in maneuvers, the German panzer divisions constituted a force with no equal in Europe.
> 
> The German Air Force, or Luftwaffe, was also the best force of its kind in 1939. It was a ground-cooperation force designed to support the Army, but its planes were superior to nearly all Allied types. In the rearmament period from 1935 to 1939 the production of German combat aircraft steadily mounted.




World War II 1939-1945 Forces and resources of the European combatants 1939 Encyclopedia Britannica


Sowell has made quite the ass-backwards comparison don't you think?


----------



## Ernie S.

NotfooledbyW said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Iran toys with your pathetic president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How on earth do you reach such a conclusion that Iran is toying with President Obama? Iran's economy is struggling. They need sanctions lifted. Obama and the rest of the P5+1 are not going to lift sanctions the minute Iran signs a deal.  Iran needs sanctions lifted. Who is really being toyed with?
Click to expand...

You and others that think obama will get a good agreement are the ones being toyed with.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ernie S. said:


> You and others that think obama will get a good agreement are the ones being toyed with.



How do you perceive that I am being toyed with since you apparently cannot deny that Obama is being toyed with. Did you see my post Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn Page 363 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum which explains the huge advantage in military aircraft the US and our allies have over Iran.  Yet you think the mouse is toying with the cat before killing and eatting it. Would you dare to try and explain your inanity?


----------



## Ernie S.

I've explained my position ad infinitum and you are incapable of understanding simple English. I have no further desire to present cogent argument to insentient beings.


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and others that think obama will get a good agreement are the ones being toyed with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you perceive that I am being toyed with since you apparently cannot deny that Obama is being toyed with. Did you see my post Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn Page 363 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum which explains the huge advantage in military aircraft the US and our allies have over Iran.  Yet you think the mouse is toying with the cat before killing and eatting it. Would you dare to try and explain your inanity?
Click to expand...



You leftist seem to think the islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ernie 11166347 





Ernie S. said:


> I've explained my position ad infinitum and you are incapable of understanding simple English.



You have not explained why you think I'm being toyed with. Many can see that you cannot explain what you mean by 'being toyed with'. So why would you make up a story that you explained it ad infinitum?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jroc 11166494 





Jroc said:


> You leftist seem to think the islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me



I don't know about you but I don't "seem" to think your ridiculous suggestion that "the Islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me" at all. It is not even close. In fact in 2003 and ever since then I consider the Theocracy in Iran to be much worse in terms of a threat than the much more secular regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq that both Colin Powell and Condi Rice considered prior to the 2001 September attacks to be "militarily" contained. It was "dumb" strategically to take out a secular regime in Iraq since the UN inspectors were all but 100% confirming that Iraq did not have the WMD stockpiles and were cooperating with inspectors to prove they were not there. Invading Iraq was dumb in 2003 because Iraq's majority of course is Shiite and fundamentally religious on the same Islamic side as the Islamonazis in Tehran.

So don't argue as your only desperate dwindling argument that I "seem" to think anything that would be according to the nonsense rattling around in your right winger head.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Debunking - there was no "war for oil" *

ChrisL11070078 





ChrisL said:


> Only, there was no "war for oil." That is ridiculous since we did not benefit from the oil. CHINA did. We do not purchase much oil from the mid east at all. If we had wanted their oil, we would have taken it. #3420



Just because a 2002 / 2003 war plan did not work out does not mean the intent was never there to start with. The US did attempt to privatize Iraq's nationalized oil infrastructure. But the US military industrial complex did benefit from a war for Iraq's "oil revenues" Just ask the workers in Lima Ohio who build Abrams Tanks for General Dynamics. How much profit did General Dynamics make on those tanks sold to Iraq?  How did the Iraqis pay for the tanks that they purchased? The money did not come from selling dates and camel bridles, did it? It of course came from $140 a barrel oil sales. That is how we did a war for oil. Not the physical oil, but for the US profits and workers pay that Iraq's oil revenues provided after the fall of Saddam Hussein.



> *U.S. Selling 170 More M-1 Abrams Tanks to Iraq After the Iraqi Army Lost 40 Last Summer to ISIS*     January 6, 2014     *Iraq Asks For More M-1s, Please  *Iraq is* buying* another 170 American M-1A1 tanks. In 2008 Iraq had ordered and received (by 2010) 140 M-1A1 tanks, 21 M88A1 armored recovery vehicles and 60 M1070 tank transporters (which can also carry supplies or other vehicles.) Iraq was not be the first Arab country to operate the M1 tank. Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia already operate over 1,600 of them, and Egypt has built hundreds of them (mainly using components imported from the U.S., but with some locally made parts). Iraq receives the M-1A1 version. All the other Arab users have at least some of the latest model (M1A2 SEP).



Do you recall what Rupert Murdoch said prior to the US invasion of Iraq?



> *MURDOCH THE OIL IMPERIALIST:* Murdoch has acknowledged his major rationale for supporting the Iraq invasion: oil. While both American and British politicians strenuously deny the significance of oil in the war, the Guardian of London notes, "Murdoch wasn’t so reticent. He believes that deposing the Iraqi leader would lead to cheaper oil." Murdoch said before the war, "The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country." He buttressed this statement when he later said, "Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else." [Guardian, 2/17/03]



Who Is Rupert Murdoch Center for American Progress


Oil was about $40 a barrel at the time of the invasion... What did it go up to after the invasion $150 a barrel. Again Murdoch's predictions:

"The greatest thing to come out of this for the world economy…would be $20 a barrel for oil. That’s bigger than any tax cut in any country." and ""Once [Iraq] is behind us, the whole world will benefit from cheaper oil which will be a bigger stimulus than anything else."

If that was not promoting US and UK troops die for oil by invading Iraq - I don't know any sane human being able to argue that invading Iraq was not a war for oil without being laughed at for being so ignorant.


----------



## Statistikhengst

This thread lives!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Statistikhengst said:


> This thread lives!!!




Its a treasure trove of right wing make-believe that requires lots of debunking for sure.


----------



## Jroc

NotfooledbyW said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread lives!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its a treasure trove of right wing make-believe that requires lots of debunking for sure.
Click to expand...



That hasn't been done little boy, but this thread has run it course start a new thread.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jroc 11171509 





Jroc said:


> That hasn't been done little boy, but this thread has run it course start a new thread.





*Debunking - islamonazis are just like you and me*

That's nonsense. Your recent post is one of the most easily debunked posts. Here's what's happened so far:

Jroc 11166494 





Jroc said:


> You leftist seem to think the islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me #3627



My response to that was this:

NF 11167249 





NotfooledbyW said:


> I don't know about you but I don't "seem" to think your ridiculous suggestion that "the Islamonazis in Iran are just like you and me" at all. It is not even close. In fact in 2003 and ever since then I consider the Theocracy in Iran to be much worse in terms of a threat than the much more secular regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq that both Colin Powell and Condi Rice considered prior to the 2001 September attacks to be "militarily" contained. It was "dumb" strategically to take out a secular regime in Iraq since the UN inspectors were all but 100% confirming that Iraq did not have the WMD stockpiles and were cooperating with inspectors to prove they were not there. Invading Iraq was dumb in 2003 because Iraq's majority of course is Shiite and fundamentally religious on the same Islamic side as the Islamonazis in Tehran. <> So don't argue as your only desperate dwindling argument that I "seem" to think anything that would be according to the nonsense rattling around in your right winger head.  #3629



Statis 11169030 





Statistikhengst said:


> This thread lives!!!  #3631



NF 11170528 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Its a treasure trove of right wing make-believe that requires lots of debunking for sure.  #3632



Jrac 11171509 





Jroc said:


> That hasn't been done little boy, but this thread has run it course start a new thread #3633



Of course its been done and you have not responded to anything. Now you want to run to a new thread. Why not respond to my debunking of your make-believe story?


----------



## Statistikhengst

I see the nutters are going out in a blaze of glory!!

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Chri 11080231 





ChrisL said:


> Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.



How do you propose getting tougher sanctions when two permanent members on the UNS want to trade with Iran and don't think tougher sanctions will work?


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Chri 11080231
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tougher sanctions are the smarter option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose getting tougher sanctions when two permanent members on the UNS want to trade with Iran and don't think tougher sanctions will work?
Click to expand...

tougher sanctions would work if people didn't cheat and trade with them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11173158 





Slyhunter said:


> tougher sanctions would work if people didn't cheat and trade with them.



So it is quite obvious to you that calling for tougher sanctions in lieu the framework agreement is made only by those who are living in some kind of dreamworld or truly want to settle the matter by war? Is that correct?


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Slyh 11173158
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> tougher sanctions would work if people didn't cheat and trade with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it is quite obvious to you that calling for tougher sanctions in lieu the framework agreement is made only by those who are living in some kind of dreamworld or truly want to settle the matter by war? Is that correct?
Click to expand...

I think a deal that doesn't eliminate Iran's nuclear capability insures a bigger war later. One that we could very well lose. Better to fight now than later with worse weapons.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11176470 





Slyhunter said:


> think a deal that doesn't eliminate Iran's nuclear capability insures a bigger war later. One that we could very well lose. Better to fight now than later with worse weapons.



So you want war because you know there is no deal to be had wherein Iran agrees to eliminate all nuclear capability. Right? So you want war not based on what has been done but based on what might happen? Right? 

Those who thing tougher sanctions will bring about the deal you want are living in a dreamworld. Right?


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Slyh 11176470
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> think a deal that doesn't eliminate Iran's nuclear capability insures a bigger war later. One that we could very well lose. Better to fight now than later with worse weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want war because you know there is no deal to be had wherein Iran agrees to eliminate all nuclear capability. Right? So you want war not based on what has been done but based on what might happen? Right?
> 
> Those who thing tougher sanctions will bring about the deal you want are living in a dreamworld. Right?
Click to expand...

What 9/11 has taught us is that we cant sit back and wait for the enemy to wage war with us but that we must be proactive and take out the enemy before he is ready to takenus out. This is no game this is survival.


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slyh 11176470
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> think a deal that doesn't eliminate Iran's nuclear capability insures a bigger war later. One that we could very well lose. Better to fight now than later with worse weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you want war because you know there is no deal to be had wherein Iran agrees to eliminate all nuclear capability. Right? So you want war not based on what has been done but based on what might happen? Right?
> 
> Those who thing tougher sanctions will bring about the deal you want are living in a dreamworld. Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What 9/11 has taught us is that we cant sit back and wait for the enemy to wage war with us but that we must be proactive and take out the enemy before he is ready to takenus out. This is no game this is survival.
Click to expand...

Nah, what 9.11 taught us was not to invade the wrong country like we did in Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11178587 





Slyhunter said:


> What 9/11 has taught us is that we cant sit back and wait for the enemy to wage war with us but that we must be proactive and take out the enemy before he is ready to takenus out. This is no game this is survival.



Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Slyh 11178587
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 9/11 has taught us is that we cant sit back and wait for the enemy to wage war with us but that we must be proactive and take out the enemy before he is ready to takenus out. This is no game this is survival.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.
Click to expand...

Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Quite interesting pair of headlines. 




> .
> *Duma official: Israel-Russian relations strong - if US doesn't intervene*
> 
> *Netanyahu calls Putin, takes neutral stance on Ukrain...*






> .
> *Russia Lifts Ban On Sending Missiles To Iran, Kremlin Says*
> 
> Posted: 04/13/15 08:40 AM ET Updated: 04/13/15 08:59 AM ET
> By Gabriela Baczynska
> 
> MOSCOW, April 13 (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday paved the way for long-overdue missile system deliveries to Iran and Moscow started an oil-for-goods swap with Tehran, showing the Kremlin's determination to boost economic ties with the Islamic Republic.




Netanyahu dislikes Obama and likes Putin. Won't take US side on Ukraine. What a guy!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11182750 





Slyhunter said:


> Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush



I never said you said it!   I was making the point because we are talking about Iran. 

Just a reminder also  in case you forgot. Iran actually lined up with us in Afghanistan against the Taliban and they hooked us up with the Northern Alliance - and Iran offered to assist our pilots if they went down in Iranian territory, 

So bringing up 09/11/01 as part of a discussion about Iran makes no sense at all. That's the point that caused you to whine over nothing. I misrepresented nothing about what you wrote.


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Slyh 11182750
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you said it!   I was making the point because we are talking about Iran.
> 
> Just a reminder also  in case you forgot. Iran actually lined up with us in Afghanistan against the Taliban and they hooked us up with the Northern Alliance - and Iran offered to assist our pilots if they went down in Iranian territory,
> 
> So bringing up 09/11/01 as part of a discussion about Iran makes no sense at all. That's the point that caused you to whine over nothing. I misrepresented nothing about what you wrote.
Click to expand...

The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11184283 





Slyhunter said:


> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.



The attacks on 09/11/01 by Sunni Wahhabi terrorists have not one thing to do with Shiite Iran's pursuit of peaceful use of nuclear power and whether or not they will use that capability to develop a nuclear weapon. Have you ever called for doing this to the Saudis?

Slyh 11143961 





Slyhunter said:


> Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.  #3560



The Saudis were the main Arab state that supported and funded much of the Wahhabi movement that included the terrorist attacks on 09/11/01 but have you called for mass murder of the Saudi royalty and wealthy Saudi financiers of terrorism? Instead you call for mass murder against a regime for something you 'think' they will do in the future.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11184283 





Slyhunter said:


> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.



The attacks on 09/11/01 by Sunni Wahhabi terrorists have not one thing to do with Shiite Iran's pursuit of peaceful use of nuclear power and whether or not they will use that capability to develop a nuclear weapon.


----------



## Billo_Really

Slyhunter said:


> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.


You need to first prove they're trying to get nukes, before we have this conversation.


----------



## suplex3000

How is this not Treason? The constitution give the making of treaties to the President. Senate is to advise but not go behind the President's back and ruin a negotiation.


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slyh 11182750
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you said it!   I was making the point because we are talking about Iran.
> 
> Just a reminder also  in case you forgot. Iran actually lined up with us in Afghanistan against the Taliban and they hooked us up with the Northern Alliance - and Iran offered to assist our pilots if they went down in Iranian territory,
> 
> So bringing up 09/11/01 as part of a discussion about Iran makes no sense at all. That's the point that caused you to whine over nothing. I misrepresented nothing about what you wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.
Click to expand...

Complete idiocy. We cannot go to war with Iran. It took us 9 years to fight a bunch of insurgents in Iraq. Iran is 3 times bigger and has real armed forces.


----------



## Slyhunter

NotfooledbyW said:


> Slyh 11184283
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attacks on 09/11/01 by Sunni Wahhabi terrorists have not one thing to do with Shiite Iran's pursuit of peaceful use of nuclear power and whether or not they will use that capability to develop a nuclear weapon. Have you ever called for doing this to the Saudis?
> 
> Slyh 11143961
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.  #3560
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Saudis were the main Arab state that supported and funded much of the Wahhabi movement that included the terrorist attacks on 09/11/01 but have you called for mass murder of the Saudi royalty and wealthy Saudi financiers of terrorism? Instead you call for mass murder against a regime for something you 'think' they will do in the future.
Click to expand...

Has the Saudis chanted Death to America in their streets, or Israel for that matter? Has their government sword to not rest until israel is pushed into the sea?  Iran has. Iran can't be trusted with nukes.

Iran believes the 12th imam will protect them.


----------



## Slyhunter

Faun said:


> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slyh 11182750
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you said it!   I was making the point because we are talking about Iran.
> 
> Just a reminder also  in case you forgot. Iran actually lined up with us in Afghanistan against the Taliban and they hooked us up with the Northern Alliance - and Iran offered to assist our pilots if they went down in Iranian territory,
> 
> So bringing up 09/11/01 as part of a discussion about Iran makes no sense at all. That's the point that caused you to whine over nothing. I misrepresented nothing about what you wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete idiocy. We cannot go to war with Iran. It took us 9 years to fight a bunch of insurgents in Iraq. Iran is 3 times bigger and has real armed forces.
Click to expand...

We don't have to go to war against Iran. We simply have to kill those in charge.


----------



## Faun

Slyhunter said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slyh 11182750
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said you said it!   I was making the point because we are talking about Iran.
> 
> Just a reminder also  in case you forgot. Iran actually lined up with us in Afghanistan against the Taliban and they hooked us up with the Northern Alliance - and Iran offered to assist our pilots if they went down in Iranian territory,
> 
> So bringing up 09/11/01 as part of a discussion about Iran makes no sense at all. That's the point that caused you to whine over nothing. I misrepresented nothing about what you wrote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Complete idiocy. We cannot go to war with Iran. It took us 9 years to fight a bunch of insurgents in Iraq. Iran is 3 times bigger and has real armed forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't have to go to war against Iran. We simply have to kill those in charge.
Click to expand...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Slyh 11187988 





Slyhunter said:


> We don't have to go to war against Iran. We simply have to kill those in charge.



When you murder the leaders en mass  chaos takes over and the moderates are the ones that don't have access to military weapons if they have weapons at all, 

You don't put much thought in your desire to mass murder peopie do you?


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Slyh 11184283
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attacks on 09/11/01 by Sunni Wahhabi terrorists have not one thing to do with Shiite Iran's pursuit of peaceful use of nuclear power and whether or not they will use that capability to develop a nuclear weapon. Have you ever called for doing this to the Saudis?
> 
> Slyh 11143961
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.  #3560
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Saudis were the main Arab state that supported and funded much of the Wahhabi movement that included the terrorist attacks on 09/11/01 but have you called for mass murder of the Saudi royalty and wealthy Saudi financiers of terrorism? Instead you call for mass murder against a regime for something you 'think' they will do in the future.
Click to expand...

Peaceful Nuclear Power.................

Drink the Kool Aid Mr. Jim Jones...................

You idiots yell and scream every time we want to build one here, but IRAN........OKEE DOKEY............

They don't have Peaceful Intentions with Nuclear Power................unless you have a brain the size of a pea.


----------



## eagle1462010

We don't have to go to War with Iran, even though they've earned it with IED weapons and tech that have sent our people home in bags..............

We destroy the Nuclear Sites and or allow Israel to do so.................No need for invasion...........just bust their asses and leave...............

PEACEFUL Nuclear Power......

You guys are a bunch of idiots.............


----------



## Faun

eagle1462010 said:


> We don't have to go to War with Iran, even though they've earned it with IED weapons and tech that have sent our people home in bags..............
> 
> We destroy the Nuclear Sites and or allow Israel to do so.................No need for invasion...........just bust their asses and leave...............
> 
> PEACEFUL Nuclear Power......
> 
> You guys are a bunch of idiots.............


We don't know all of their nuclear sites. I've read there could be as many a 200 different locations. Some underground and others in mountains where bombs won't reach. You're foolish if you think that's a viable option.


----------



## Kondor3

eagle1462010 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slyh 11184283
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The point was relevant. We can't wait until after Iran has nukes and decides to play bully boy to act, we must make sure it never gets to that point by any means necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The attacks on 09/11/01 by Sunni Wahhabi terrorists have not one thing to do with Shiite Iran's pursuit of peaceful use of nuclear power and whether or not they will use that capability to develop a nuclear weapon. Have you ever called for doing this to the Saudis?
> 
> Slyh 11143961
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.  #3560
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Saudis were the main Arab state that supported and funded much of the Wahhabi movement that included the terrorist attacks on 09/11/01 but have you called for mass murder of the Saudi royalty and wealthy Saudi financiers of terrorism? Instead you call for mass murder against a regime for something you 'think' they will do in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Peaceful Nuclear Power.................
> 
> Drink the Kool Aid Mr. Jim Jones...................
> 
> You idiots yell and scream every time we want to build one here, but IRAN........OKEE DOKEY............
> 
> They don't have Peaceful Intentions with Nuclear Power................unless you have a brain the size of a pea.
Click to expand...

It's easier to cower in the corner and pull the blanket over your head and stick your fingers in your ears and pretend the threat doesn't exist...

The trick is, to be sure that such idiots are not in a position of power, when Decision Time comes, about what to do next, as will happen on January 20, 2017...


----------



## Kondor3

Faun said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to go to War with Iran, even though they've earned it with IED weapons and tech that have sent our people home in bags..............
> 
> We destroy the Nuclear Sites and or allow Israel to do so.................No need for invasion...........just bust their asses and leave...............
> 
> PEACEFUL Nuclear Power......
> 
> You guys are a bunch of idiots.............
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know all of their nuclear sites. I've read there could be as many a 200 different locations. Some underground and others in mountains where bombs won't reach. You're foolish if you think that's a viable option.
Click to expand...

Should we go after the 100 we *DO* know about?


----------



## Faun

Kondor3 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We don't have to go to War with Iran, even though they've earned it with IED weapons and tech that have sent our people home in bags..............
> 
> We destroy the Nuclear Sites and or allow Israel to do so.................No need for invasion...........just bust their asses and leave...............
> 
> PEACEFUL Nuclear Power......
> 
> You guys are a bunch of idiots.............
> 
> 
> 
> We don't know all of their nuclear sites. I've read there could be as many a 200 different locations. Some underground and others in mountains where bombs won't reach. You're foolish if you think that's a viable option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Should we go after the 100 we *DO* know about?
Click to expand...

 Why? That doesn't prevent them from developing a nuke. All it does is drag us into war with them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 11068340 





ChrisL said:


> This thread has nothing to do with "war." Go start another thread. It's about Iran, Islam and the fact that some morons want to give Iran the materials to make a bomb. #3404



Really? Your side from Netanyahu on down wants war and makes no bones about it? And who wants to give Iran the materials to make a nuclear bomb? Your imagination is working overtime.

DT 10927224 





deltex1 said:


> So treaties mean nothing to you. And they mean nothing to iran. So fuck iran. Nuke em. #160



Deltex is much more ambitious than Slyhunter. He's wiping out 70 million Persians and leaving the rest with radiation sickness.

DT 10927430 





deltex1 said:


> Suddenly there will be 5 million Persians...and they will have radiation sickness. #179



Slyh 11085619 





Slyhunter said:


> Sanctions don't work when the players cheat the system. Russia, China, and others trade with these countries we have sanctions against making our sanctions worthless. That leaves us with no alternative but war. #3509



Slyh 11085626 





Slyhunter said:


> We have the MOAB, which can level a capital city into a parking lot. #3510



Perhaps you are right? This thread is not about 'war' it is about wanting America's military to commit 'mass murder' as seen in this exchange:



> Slyh 11142177
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal. #3551
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF 11142942
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you propose that "we" replace their leaders? #3552
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slyhunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Boy we keep running in circles. *Moab their capital buildings and their private homes*. #3560
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You don't seem to be paying attention to what RW'ers are saying on this thread and others. Why is that?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Debunking – Iran is funding the Taliban:*


Eagl 11153315 





eagle1462010 said:


> Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them   #3604



What funding 'right now'? Iran openly is more intent on preventing the Taliban from a return to power specifically in the wake of the P5+1 nuclear framework agreement. India and Iran can provide a positive economic, trade and aid benefit to the Afghan Government's ability to continue to defeat the Taliban as Afghanistan is transitioning to providing its own security with much less reliance on foreign troops as the next few years unfold.



> Both Iran and India have an interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not revert to the Taliban-controlled Pakistani client state that it was in the 1990s. To that end, India and Iran must engage each other to strengthen the hand of the government in Kabul. *Further, if a nuclear deal is finalized, the U.S. may be far more open to engaging with the Iranians on Afghanistan, which bodes well for India. Broadly speaking, neither the U.S. nor Iran feels particularly comfortable at the prospect of the reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.*
> 
> Finally, the deal may also provide the necessary impetus for India and Iran to ramp up cooperation on the development of the Chabahar deep-water port. Chabahar’s strategic location will make it a critical transit point for trade between not only India, Iran and Afghanistan, but also provide connectivity to Central Asia and Europe, via the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which is estimated to be 40 percent shorter and 30 percent less expensive than trade via the Red Sea-Suez Canal-Mediterranean route.


.

How an Iran Nuclear Deal Would Benefit India The Diplomat


----------



## NotfooledbyW

So what happened here?



> ChrisL 11047581
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can go track down your hateful posts. Shall I? #3334
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NF 11047779
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go for it? #3335
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ChrisL 11049254
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will. Don't you worry.  #3336
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I am still waiting?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

ChrisL 10998071 





ChrisL said:


> Obama cannot make a treaty with anyone without going through congress. #3194



So why did the Republican controlled Congress do this?

"On Tuesday's Mark Levin: The U.S. Senate has capitulated to President Obama by rewriting the treaty provision of the Constitution. Sen. Bob Corker and Lindsey Graham have dragged the GOP-controlled Congress into a disaster that they’re happy to support. The Senate not only whitewashed the treaty power of the constitution, *but also made it impossible for them to stop Obama."*


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Debunking – Iran is funding the Taliban:*
> 
> 
> Eagl 11153315
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them   #3604
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What funding 'right now'? Iran openly is more intent on preventing the Taliban from a return to power specifically in the wake of the P5+1 nuclear framework agreement. India and Iran can provide a positive economic, trade and aid benefit to the Afghan Government's ability to continue to defeat the Taliban as Afghanistan is transitioning to providing its own security with much less reliance on foreign troops as the next few years unfold.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Iran and India have an interest in ensuring that Afghanistan does not revert to the Taliban-controlled Pakistani client state that it was in the 1990s. To that end, India and Iran must engage each other to strengthen the hand of the government in Kabul. *Further, if a nuclear deal is finalized, the U.S. may be far more open to engaging with the Iranians on Afghanistan, which bodes well for India. Broadly speaking, neither the U.S. nor Iran feels particularly comfortable at the prospect of the reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan.*
> 
> Finally, the deal may also provide the necessary impetus for India and Iran to ramp up cooperation on the development of the Chabahar deep-water port. Chabahar’s strategic location will make it a critical transit point for trade between not only India, Iran and Afghanistan, but also provide connectivity to Central Asia and Europe, via the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), which is estimated to be 40 percent shorter and 30 percent less expensive than trade via the Red Sea-Suez Canal-Mediterranean route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> How an Iran Nuclear Deal Would Benefit India The Diplomat
Click to expand...

https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf


----------



## eagle1462010

(U) Conclusion (U) Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq. Iran’s intentions are the same in both Iraq and Afghanistan: to develop, fund and arm proxy networks to leverage against the perceived U.S. aim of pursuing an active regime change doctrine in Iran. Iran’s use of proxy weapons smuggling networks may be unpleasant, but in practice, Iran restrains the full potential of these networks in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran can use its shared borders to more quickly and efficiently fund, train, and arm its proxy networks in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Iran has deliberately withheld many of the highpowered rockets, SAMs and other munitions that Hezbollah fielded against Israel. Iran’s introduction of EFPs in Iraq and Afghanistan has irritated U.S. military and political leaders enough that an Iranian escalation of weapons is not necessary for Iran to apply an uncomfortable amount of pressure on the United States. (U) Conceding the restrained nature of Iranian meddling in Afghanistan does not imply that Iran’s actions should be acceptable to U.S. policymakers. The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier. This backs Iran into a corner, but allows room for the possibility that sub-state actors such as al-Quds and criminal elements may covertly operate outside of regular Iranian government powerbrokers. Washington may be able to subtly shift Iranian threat perceptions if the U.S. can better define that Sunni fundamentalists pose an ideological threat with no resolution, while fears of U.S. intentions can be systematically disproved. A more difficult hurdle will be shaping an alliance against Sunni fundamentalists in Afghanistan that does not appear to undermine the legitimacy of the Iranian government’s carefully crafted image as the world’s only true Islamic Republic. Unlike Iraq, Afghanistan is not a majority Shi’a country, and Iran must tread more lightly in supporting Shi’a interests


----------



## Care4all

So the Shiites in Iran are funding the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan....??????

I find that very hard to believe there is an ounce of truth in that....


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11153315 





eagle1462010 said:


> Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them.......#3604.........



eagl 11215012 





eagle1462010 said:


> (U) Conclusion (U) Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq   #3668




Your link is six years old and is quite weak in blaming the Iranian
theocracy for attacks on Americans:

https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf



> The U.S. and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shown similar reserve when leveling accusations against Iran: demonstrating a severe frustration with Iran’s actions, while implicitly acknowledging *Iran’s overall restraint in supporting Afghan insurgents*.  Anyone familiar with the centers of power within the Iranian government is not surprised by a comment made by the British Ambassador to Kabul in September 2008, when the ambassador noted:  "I suspect some of [the Iranian state] agencies genuinely don't know what others are up to. We've seen a limited supply of weapons by a group within the Iranian state, not necessarily with the knowledge of all other agencies of the Iranian state, sending some very dangerous weapons to the Taliban in the south."2  (U) Iran has no interest in creating greater strategic difficulties for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan at this time.  The Iranian regime has demonstrated its ability to underwrite militants with a broad array of weapons short of fielding a conventional army.  Likewise, Iran has consciously pursued a tract of low-level conflict and minor instability to remind Americans of the potential for true negative Iranian influences in the region if Iran feels existentially threatened.




You cited this: _"The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that *the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier*_."


If any of this was going on it was during the Bush Administrations. Why didn't he stop it?

And Bush couldn't get Saddam's second in command al Douri. Its looking like Obama policy got him yesterday, pending DNA reports.





> Bghdad, Iraq (CNN)Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top deputy to Saddam Hussein and more recently a key  figure in Sunni extremist groups battling the Iraqi government, has been killed in a security operation in that country, Iraqi state-run television reported Friday.
> 
> Al-Douri was the highest-ranking member of Hussein's regime to evade capture -- the "King of Clubs" in a deck of playing cards used by American troops to identify the most-wanted regime officials.
> 
> He also was a man thought to have led the post-Hussein Sunni extremist group Naqshbandi Army. Military analysis website Globalsecurity.org says the Naqshbandi Army supports ISIS, which has taken over parts of Iraq and Syria.
> 
> Al-Douri was killed in an operation by Iraqi security forces and Shia militia members in the Hamrin Mountains between Tikrit and Kirkuk, Iraq, Shia militia commander Hadi al-Ameri said.
> 
> That militia is a predominantly Shiite fighting group that worked with Iraqi troops earlier this month to liberate the Iraqi city of Tikrit from ISIS.
> 
> The death of al-Douri was also reported by the governor of Salahuddin province, Raid al-Jubouri, who spoke by phone on Iraqi television.
> 
> 
> Al-Douri's body arrived Friday in Baghdad, where DNA samples were taken to confirm the identity, said the spokesman of another Shiite militia called Hashd Shaabi in an interview with state-run Iraqiya TV.
> 
> DNA test results could be available in 48 hours, Hashd Shaabi spokesman Yousuf al-Kilabi told the outlet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraqi State TV: Terrorist leader killed " class="media__image" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120408015023-iraq-al-douri-large-169.jpg"&gt



Not much of a caliphate your ISIS terrorist thugs put on the map.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagl 11153315
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them.......#3604.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagl 11215012
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> (U) Conclusion (U) Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq   #3668
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your link is six years old and is quite weak in blaming the Iranian
> theocracy for attacks on Americans:
> 
> https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shown similar reserve when leveling accusations against Iran: demonstrating a severe frustration with Iran’s actions, while implicitly acknowledging *Iran’s overall restraint in supporting Afghan insurgents*.  Anyone familiar with the centers of power within the Iranian government is not surprised by a comment made by the British Ambassador to Kabul in September 2008, when the ambassador noted:  "I suspect some of [the Iranian state] agencies genuinely don't know what others are up to. We've seen a limited supply of weapons by a group within the Iranian state, not necessarily with the knowledge of all other agencies of the Iranian state, sending some very dangerous weapons to the Taliban in the south."2  (U) Iran has no interest in creating greater strategic difficulties for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan at this time.  The Iranian regime has demonstrated its ability to underwrite militants with a broad array of weapons short of fielding a conventional army.  Likewise, Iran has consciously pursued a tract of low-level conflict and minor instability to remind Americans of the potential for true negative Iranian influences in the region if Iran feels existentially threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You cited this: _"The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that *the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier*_."
> 
> 
> If any of this was going on it was during the Bush Administrations. Why didn't he stop it?
> 
> And Bush couldn't get Saddam's second in command al Douri. Its looking like Obama policy got him yesterday, pending DNA reports.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bghdad, Iraq (CNN)Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a former top deputy to Saddam Hussein and more recently a key  figure in Sunni extremist groups battling the Iraqi government, has been killed in a security operation in that country, Iraqi state-run television reported Friday.
> 
> Al-Douri was the highest-ranking member of Hussein's regime to evade capture -- the "King of Clubs" in a deck of playing cards used by American troops to identify the most-wanted regime officials.
> 
> He also was a man thought to have led the post-Hussein Sunni extremist group Naqshbandi Army. Military analysis website Globalsecurity.org says the Naqshbandi Army supports ISIS, which has taken over parts of Iraq and Syria.
> 
> Al-Douri was killed in an operation by Iraqi security forces and Shia militia members in the Hamrin Mountains between Tikrit and Kirkuk, Iraq, Shia militia commander Hadi al-Ameri said.
> 
> That militia is a predominantly Shiite fighting group that worked with Iraqi troops earlier this month to liberate the Iraqi city of Tikrit from ISIS.
> 
> The death of al-Douri was also reported by the governor of Salahuddin province, Raid al-Jubouri, who spoke by phone on Iraqi television.
> 
> 
> Al-Douri's body arrived Friday in Baghdad, where DNA samples were taken to confirm the identity, said the spokesman of another Shiite militia called Hashd Shaabi in an interview with state-run Iraqiya TV.
> 
> DNA test results could be available in 48 hours, Hashd Shaabi spokesman Yousuf al-Kilabi told the outlet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraqi State TV: Terrorist leader killed " class="media__image" src="http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/120408015023-iraq-al-douri-large-169.jpg"&gt
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not much of a caliphate your ISIS terrorist thugs put on the map.
Click to expand...

My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation?  While they don't want the Taliban to control Afghanistan they support them to kill U.S. soldiers and be a royal pain in the ass to U.S. and Coalition Forces in the region.

Secondly, these weapons are produced in Iran and/or from foreign suppliers such as N. Korea, Russia, and etc............To say that the Iranian Government doesn't really know or support these weapons going to the Taliban is Political Two Step BS..............Deny, Deny, Deny but they are doing it anyway............This is the norm over there and even on our side of the equation.

3rd..........you continually challenge ANY DATA that would condemn Iran for their actions.............and I believe that is Politically motivated as you defend Obama's actions and attempt to condemn the EVIL REPUBLICANS, LOL, instead of addressing the facts of the Leadership and goals of Iran.

6 years old...............Unclassified report and I went to DOD sites and Centcom..........showing how Iran is funding and supporting our enemies in that region...........BUT BUSH..............again deflection to defend Obama as the Iranians are still doing this..................I'm not going to go through all of Centcom's reports to get the newer reports to satisfy your BIASED POSITION.  Which you will IGNORE ANYWAY.

Under Bush and Obama we have used Drone Attacks in Iran and Pakistan to try and stem the tide of weapons smuggling from the neighboring countries............and insurgents coming in as well.  We lost a scout drone in Iran that they now claim to have copy catted and are and gave the drone to Russia for further examination.

Iran has a history of LYING.  Their AMBITION IS TO GET A NUKE.   They have stated this TIME and TIME again...........Even now under the so called deal they are basically already saying they will never honor it, and STILL PEOPLE LIKE you are pushing for a deal that will DO NOTHING in the END...............

ALL POLITICALLY MOTIVATED...........that will have the same result as CLINTON'S DEAL WITH N. KOREA.


----------



## eagle1462010

Care4all said:


> So the Shiites in Iran are funding the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan....??????
> 
> I find that very hard to believe there is an ounce of truth in that....


The enemy of my enemy is my friend.  I'm not saying they want Sunni's to win in Afghanistan...........They support the Taliban to be a thorn in our side.............only enough to keep the region unstable so our influence there is marginalized..............

They openly support Hamas which is Sunni.  Because they attack Israel and are a thorn in their side............

So, I don't find it hard to believe they are playing both sides of the equation.


----------



## eagle1462010

Taliban opens office in Iran - Telegraph

Pentagon Iran Giving Lethal Aid to the Taliban to Fight U.S. Washington Free Beacon

Iran’s elite military force, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), has been supplying various arms to the Taliban as part of Tehran’s mission of eradicating Western forces and preventing the United States from safely establishing permanent bases in Afghanistan, according to the Pentagon’s 2014 “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan” report, which was published in October.

The arms are being provided by Iran as a supplement to a $1 billion aid program aimed at keeping the Afghan government firmly in Tehran’s corner, according to the report.

Details of Iran’s clandestine support for the Taliban come as the Obama administration quietly continues its efforts to enlist Iran in the fight against the Islamic State (IS).

President Barack Obama secretly wrote to the Iranian Supreme Leader in mid-October to express his willingness to partner with Tehran in the fight against IS (also known as ISIS or ISIL), the _Wall Street Journal_ reported on Thursday.

Iran’s support of terrorism in neighboring Afghanistan highlights the difficulty of attempting to form a military alliance with a rogue country that continues to explicitly fight against U.S. interests.

“The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force provides calibrated lethal aid to the Taliban to attrite ISAF [the International Security Assistance Force] and expedite force withdrawal,” the Pentagon wrote in its latest report.


----------



## eagle1462010

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/afghanistan-security-stability_201410.pdf

5.6: IRAN Iran’s goals in Afghanistan remain focused on maintaining friendly relations with the Afghan central government, preventing a Taliban return to power, and minimizing western presence and influence. Tehran’s strategy includes employing a soft-power campaign to promote a proIranian and pro-Shia sentiment within Afghanistan through a $1 billion donor aid program to upgrade infrastructure, provide humanitarian, cultural/religious support, and economic assistance.* Concurrently, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps – Qods Force provides calibrated lethal aid to the Taliban to attrite ISAF and expedite force withdrawal.* Tehran opposes the establishment of permanent U.S. bases in Afghanistan. However, Iran fears that a precipitous departure of NATO forces will increase instability on its border and perhaps lead to the return of the Taliban. At a minimum, Iran seeks to ensure its security concerns are addressed by maintaining pressure on GIRoA officials and seeking its own security agreement with Kabul. Since 2001, Iran pledged more than $1 billion in aid to Afghanistan and actually paid out more than $500 million. Iran’s reconstruction and development efforts are largely concentrated in western Afghanistan. Iran intends to increase its influence among the local population in order to foster pro-Iranian sentiment. Iran also wants to expand its sphere of influence beyond border 99 regions into other parts of Afghanistan, particularly Kabul. Iran maintains its embassy in Kabul and consulates in Herat, Jalalabad, Kandahar, and Mazar-e-Sharif, and is considering opening additional consulates in Bamiyan and Nimroz Provinces. Iran participates in the regional Istanbul Process. *At the same time, Iran continued to provide lethal assistance, including light weapons and training, to elements of the Taliban and other insurgent groups. Since 2007, coalition and Afghan forces interdicted several shipments of Iranian weapons.* Beyond economic and security issues, the protracted Afghan refugee situation continues to be a contentious issue between Iran and Afghanistan. Approximately one million registered Afghan refugees and at least 1.4 million Afghan migrants (non-refugees) currently reside in Iran. During this reporting period, Iran did not forcibly expel or return registered refugees. Iran continued to deport undocumented Afghans (non-refugees), although at a slightly reduced pace compared to previous years


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11216400 





eagle1462010 said:


> My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation?



Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' what has been described by our government and NATO and posted by you. Where have I denied the veracity of those official governmental reports?

I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas.

My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out. 



> eagl 11153315
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them.......#3604.........
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> eagl 1462010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (U) Conclusion: Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq #3668
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> NF 11216013.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Your link is six years old and is quite weak in blaming the Iranian
> theocracy for attacks on Americans:
> 
> https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shown similar reserve when leveling accusations against Iran: demonstrating a severe frustration with Iran’s actions, while implicitly acknowledging *Iran’s overall restraint in supporting Afghan insurgents*. Anyone familiar with the centers of power within the Iranian government is not surprised by a comment made by the British Ambassador to Kabul in September 2008, when the ambassador noted: "I suspect some of [the Iranian state] agencies genuinely don't know what others are up to. We've seen a limited supply of weapons by a group within the Iranian state, not necessarily with the knowledge of all other agencies of the Iranian state, sending some very dangerous weapons to the Taliban in the south."2 (U) Iran has no interest in creating greater strategic difficulties for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan at this time. The Iranian regime has demonstrated its ability to underwrite militants with a broad array of weapons short of fielding a conventional army. Likewise, Iran has consciously pursued a tract of low-level conflict and minor instability to remind Americans of the potential for true negative Iranian influences in the region if Iran feels existentially threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited this: _"The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that *the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier*_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Perhaps you will read it this time we can only hope.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagl 11216400
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' what has been described by our government and NATO and posted by you. Where have I denied the veracity of those official governmental reports?
> 
> I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas.
> 
> My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagl 11153315
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right now they are still funding the Taliban while we are still in combat against them.......#3604.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> eagl 1462010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (U) Conclusion: Iran provides arms and funding to Afghan insurgents as it continues to do so in Iraq #3668
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> NF 11216013.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Your link is six years old and is quite weak in blaming the Iranian
> theocracy for attacks on Americans:
> 
> https://info.publicintelligence.net/JIEDDO-IranWeaponsSmuggling.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The U.S. and members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have shown similar reserve when leveling accusations against Iran: demonstrating a severe frustration with Iran’s actions, while implicitly acknowledging *Iran’s overall restraint in supporting Afghan insurgents*. Anyone familiar with the centers of power within the Iranian government is not surprised by a comment made by the British Ambassador to Kabul in September 2008, when the ambassador noted: "I suspect some of [the Iranian state] agencies genuinely don't know what others are up to. We've seen a limited supply of weapons by a group within the Iranian state, not necessarily with the knowledge of all other agencies of the Iranian state, sending some very dangerous weapons to the Taliban in the south."2 (U) Iran has no interest in creating greater strategic difficulties for U.S. Forces in Afghanistan at this time. The Iranian regime has demonstrated its ability to underwrite militants with a broad array of weapons short of fielding a conventional army. Likewise, Iran has consciously pursued a tract of low-level conflict and minor instability to remind Americans of the potential for true negative Iranian influences in the region if Iran feels existentially threatened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You cited this: _"The United States has been careful to avoid leveling direct accusations against Iran for providing insurgents with weapons and training in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Official U.S. comments concerning the discovery of Iranian-made weapons in Afghanistan are careful to suggest that *the Iranian government may not be the direct supplier*_."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps you will read it this time we can only hope.
Click to expand...

I have read the area in blue.................That is the Political BS I am referring to.  That is the Politicians trying to be Politically correct.  Even our Military Brass are careful not to be too harsh on Iran.  But the Pentagon reports and Centcom reports tell a different story....................Iran has openly supplied our enemies according to these reports............yet we are currently in a so called Nuclear Deal with Iran.................being too harsh may make the deal Obama has sold his soul to fail....................which it is already doing.

Again, perhaps you will read these reports and HOPE you finally recognize Iran as our enemy.  And perhaps HOPE you finally recognize that this so called deal with Iran is Only a PIPE DREAM.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11216425 





eagle1462010 said:


> Details of Iran’s clandestine support for the Taliban come as the Obama administration quietly continues its efforts to enlist Iran in the fight against the Islamic State (IS). #3673




My problem is that you do not hold Bush accountable at all for 'enlisting' Iran and the Quds Force's trained militia, the Badr Brigades under the political wing of Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,

By 2006 Bush certainly had to know according to reports you are citing that Iran's top leaders were allegedly behind weapons being used to kill US and Coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he holds hands with Tehran's top leader sent into Iraq in 2003 to work with the US government.

Please note that there were 150,000 US troops in Iraq and 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan when Bush was holding hands with Al-Hakim. There are now zero US combat troops in Iraq right now being threatened. And in Afghanistan our troops are no longer in combat in the lead of the fight with the Taliban. So Iran, if they so wished, have fewer and harder to hit US targets in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Yet you make a big deal of what's past and was potentially a big threat to our troops' safety back in 2006 while the Bush / Hakim love fest in the White House was going on.  Your hypocrisy in bringing up Iran's past double dealing is to be expected. You don't appear to view the course of history and historical fact and relevance though any kind of rational or logical lens. You have a good set of blinders strapped to your head. You see only what the conservative political entertainment industry puts straight ahead and only in front of you.  You need to look around a bit.


NF 10938780





NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you actually think there is a way to bring the Shiite government of Iraq to join the US military in driving Iranians out of Iraq?
> 
> December 2006
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper
> 
> 
> 
> President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
> 
> That is who brought Iran trained Badr a Militia into Iraq. #45




Bush was watching the Badr militia committing genocide against Sunnis in the Baghdad area while this photo was being shot.   Apparently that saved US troops lives by not having to do it directly. Some deal eh?

The Badr Militia was involved in the recent liberation of Tikrit  Some of them may have been killed. Would you prefer it were Americans getting killed in that battle instead?


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagl 11216425
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Details of Iran’s clandestine support for the Taliban come as the Obama administration quietly continues its efforts to enlist Iran in the fight against the Islamic State (IS). #3673
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My problem is that you do not hold Bush accountable at all for 'enlisting' Iran and the Quds Force's trained militia, the Badr Brigades under the political wing of Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq,
> 
> By 2006 Bush certainly had to know according to reports you are citing that Iran's top leaders were allegedly behind weapons being used to kill US and Coalition troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet he holds hands with Tehran's top leader sent into Iraq in 2003 to work with the US government.
> 
> Please note that there were 150,000 US troops in Iraq and 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan when Bush was holding hands with Al-Hakim. There are now zero US combat troops in Iraq right now being threatened. And in Afghanistan our troops are no longer in combat in the lead of the fight with the Taliban. So Iran, if they so wished, have fewer and harder to hit US targets in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Yet you make a big deal of what's past and was potentially a big threat to our troops' safety back in 2006 while the Bush / Hakim love fest in the White House was going on.  Your hypocrisy in bringing up Iran's past double dealing is to be expected. You don't appear to view the course of history and historical fact and relevance though any kind of rational or logical lens. You have a good set of blinders strapped to your head. You see only what the conservative political entertainment industry puts straight ahead and only in front of you.  You need to look around a bit.
> 
> 
> NF 10938780
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you actually think there is a way to bring the Shiite government of Iraq to join the US military in driving Iranians out of Iraq?
> 
> December 2006
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President George W. Bush welcomes Sayyed Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, to the White House Monday, Dec. 4, 2006. Said the President, "I appreciate so very much His Eminence's commitment to a unity government. I assured him the United States supports his work and the work of the Prime Minister to unify the country." White House photo by Eric Draper
> 
> 
> 
> President Bush Meets with His Eminence Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim Leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq
> 
> That is who brought Iran trained Badr a Militia into Iraq. #45
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bush was watching the Badr militia committing genocide against Sunnis in the Baghdad area while this photo was being shot.   Apparently that saved US troops lives by not having to do it directly. Some deal eh?
> 
> The Badr Militia was involved in the recent liberation of Tikrit  Some of them may have been killed. Would you prefer it were Americans getting killed in that battle instead?
Click to expand...

Abdul Aziz al-Hakim - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Hakim was an Iraqi forced to flee to Iran.  He returned to help govern Iraq and was friendly to the U.S. in the open..................

Iraq is overwelmingly Shiite..........Always has been..............After the War the Majority ruled.

Your position is BUT BUSH............When Bush left office Iraq was intact..............wasn't it.

What happened in Iraq is fools like you voted a chump into office.  Iraq's take over happened on Obama's watch and he allowed ISIL to take over Northern Iraq doing nothing to stop it until it was too danged late.  Places that Americans shed blood to take.

The problem with Iraq.................IS OBAMA


----------



## eagle1462010

Second part of your statement..........actually the first part...................Shiites were fighting Sunni's and vis a versa...........Shiites from Iran were in the fight with a Shiite in Power in Iraq.................

Should the Iraqi's have voted in a Buddist Monk?  Your deflection is noted.

It doesn't deflect that Iraq was intact when Obama came into office.

One note...............Bush knew that Iran was supplying weapons to KILL AMERICANS............so yes he should have done something about Iran before he left office..................and that is to Blow the Hell out of the Iranian Nuclear sites...............and ended this danged discussion before the Chump Obama took control.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

So you have conceded that you were wrong to have asked me this question?

eagl 11216400, 





eagle1462010 said:


> My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation?  #3671



I see now you wish to shift the discussion back to blaming Obama solely for the Sunni Daesh terrorist scum taking over much of Sunni inhabited Iraq by adhering to Bush's withdrawal plan of 2008. But before we go there your argument on Iran has fallen apart because I do not accept your characterization of what I 'fathom' or don't fathom'.

NF 11217027 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' {the} veracity of those official governmental reports?    I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas.   My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out.  .  #3675



Do you concede that your 'first response' in #3671 was invalid and wholly distorting  my position on that topic? How do we have an intelligent discussion when you distort my position on such matters?

Wanting to jump over to blaming Obama for Daesh when you've been caught making something up regarding this thread  is just not going to cut it.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotfooledbyW said:


> So you have conceded that you were wrong to have asked me this question?
> 
> eagl 11216400,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation?  #3671
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see now you wish to shift the discussion back to blaming Obama solely for the Sunni Daesh terrorist scum taking over much of Sunni inhabited Iraq by adhering to Bush's withdrawal plan of 2008. But before we go there your argument on Iran has fallen apart because I do not accept your characterization of what I 'fathom' or don't fathom'.
> 
> NF 11217027
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' {the} veracity of those official governmental reports?    I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas.   My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out.  .  #3675
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you concede that your 'frist response' in #3671 was invalid and wholly distorting  my position on that topic? How do we have an intelligent discussion when you distort my position on such matters?
> 
> Wanting to jump over to blaming Obama for Daesh when you've been caught making something up regarding this thread  is just not going to cut it.
Click to expand...


How's Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran doing under your Messiah, Foo? 

You've been beating the same dead horse since 2004, it stinks Foo, it stinks to high heaven....let it go


----------



## NotfooledbyW

SIL 11219789 





SassyIrishLass said:


> How's Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran doing under your Messiah, Foo?



There is not one country you mentioned where Obama decided to start a war by air and ground invasion in order to find WMD's that did not exist that left 4484 American soldiers dead is there?  Iraq is defeating ISIS - what's wrong with Egypt? What's wrong with Iran helping to defeat ISIS?

Iran has been under severe sanctions that Obama solidified in 2010 and a moderate replaced Ahmadinanutjob.  Bad Maliki is gone,


----------



## SassyIrishLass

NotfooledbyW said:


> SIL 11219789
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Iraq, and Iran doing under your Messiah, Foo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one country you mentioned where Obama decided to start a war by air and ground invasion in order to find WMD's that did not exist that left 4484 American soldiers dead is there?  Iraq is defeating ISIS - what's wrong with Egypt? What's wrong with Iran helping to defeat ISIS?
> 
> Iran has been under severe sanctions that Obama solidified in 2010 and a moderate replaced Ahmadinanutjob.  Bad Maliki is gone,
Click to expand...


Of course he won't "start a war" pussies with no balls don't do that, meanwhile civilians (you know the ones you leftist assholes whine and moan about) are getting slaughtered. Well done, Foo....you're backing a limp wrist asshole. But I expected nothing less for someone that refused to serve.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> So you have conceded that you were wrong to have asked me this question?
> 
> eagl 11216400,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My first response to you is why can't you fathom the Iranian Government playing both sides of the equation?  #3671
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see now you wish to shift the discussion back to blaming Obama solely for the Sunni Daesh terrorist scum taking over much of Sunni inhabited Iraq by adhering to Bush's withdrawal plan of 2008. But before we go there your argument on Iran has fallen apart because I do not accept your characterization of what I 'fathom' or don't fathom'.
> 
> NF 11217027
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your first response is a fraud in question form. I 'fathom' {the} veracity of those official governmental reports?    I cited many parts of those reports and I do understand that both eastern Iran and western Pakistan share a border with Afghanistan. And in those two areas across Afghanistan's borders lie some of the worst lawless and ungovernable areas of the world. Lots of bad characters conduct lethal business from those areas.   My problem with your first response is that you don't acknowledge the entire context of the report. So I tried to help you out.  .  #3675
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you concede that your 'first response' in #3671 was invalid and wholly distorting  my position on that topic? How do we have an intelligent discussion when you distort my position on such matters?
> 
> Wanting to jump over to blaming Obama for Daesh when you've been caught making something up regarding this thread  is just not going to cut it.
Click to expand...

The only thing I concede to you is that you are an ignorant Fool, which is pretty standard for the liberal brigade members.
You are pushing excuses for the inept handling of Foreign affairs by Obama.  It is under his command that Northern Iraq was lost, not Bushes.................Because he didn't even have the gonads to at least leave a command and control element in Iraq for intel to help the Iraqi's with finding and killing their enemies.

In short his policy was cut and run, without regard for the consequences until it was thrust on him when ISIL was on Bagdad's doorstep.  All of Northern Iraq, paid for in blood, was lost.  And no matter how you spin it, that FAILURE RESTS WITH HIM.

To the OP, as you deflect....................Obama is making a bad policy decision again and the GOP is attempting to thwart him..............from a deal that he can't even get signed anyway...............Iran will not honor it anyway, even if he does get them to sign something............ which he is hell bent to do for political rather than strategic motives.

Anyway, whatever Nat..............you are full of it as always and refuse to see the danger of dealing with Iran.  Your purpose is the norm of Obama.  Leading by making EXCUSES.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Eagl 11217860 





eagle1462010 said:


> Hakim was an Iraqi forced to flee to Iran. He returned to help govern Iraq and was friendly to the U.S. in the open..................    #3678



So coming into Iraq with Bush's blessing, Hakim brings an Iranian, Qud's force trained, army (many born in Iran) into Iraq that had a mission to drive Sunni families and Sunni businesses out of the area surrounding Bagdad.- and you call that helping the US to govern the new Iraq. And do you think Bush had all this Sunni Shiite conflict resolved when he left his Iraq mess to President Obama? .


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11221076 





eagle1462010 said:


> The only thing I concede to you is that you are an ignorant Fool, which is pretty standard for the liberal brigade members. #3684



So when you get caught in a lie your reaction is to get your foul mouth involved and revert to the only argument rightwingers can rely upon. Liberals are bad. That is not an argument. That is a cop out in the first degree.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Eagl 11217860
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hakim was an Iraqi forced to flee to Iran. He returned to help govern Iraq and was friendly to the U.S. in the open..................    #3678
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So coming into Iraq with Bush's blessing, Hakim brings an Iranian, Qud's force trained, army (many born in Iran) into Iraq that had a mission to drive Sunni families and Sunni businesses out of the area surrounding Bagdad.- and you call that helping the US to govern the new Iraq. And do you think Bush had all this Sunni Shiite conflict resolved when he left his Iraq mess to President Obama? .
Click to expand...

I think you got dropped on your head at birth.

Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office.  It was his measures that brought us to where we are today.  It was lost under his term.

BUT BUSH.....and blaming Bush for Obama's policy failures dumb ass.  The Qud's were there when Bush was in office giving insurgent Shiites IED's and it led to U.S. deaths...................as the IED's were 70% of Fatalities.  Why would we want a deal with the asshats that sent our people home in boxes.

Under Bush our troops were killing Quds there...............You really are a boot licking liberal.

But please continue with the BS.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Are you calling Bush a liar. This is what he said in 2004.

"One central commitment of that mission is the *transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people*. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America."

Yet you say Northern Iraq was lost 'under his command'.  How can you state something so utterly preposterous and expect anyone to take you seriously?. 

eagl 11221076 





eagle1462010 said:


> It is under his command that Northern Iraq was lost, not Bushes #3684



Obama has never been in command of Northern Iraq. Bush gave Iraq it's sovereignty in 2004.

Here's what Bush said about Iraq's sovereignty:


*Bush statement on Iraq  *April 14, 2004  *US President George W Bush's address to nation at White House press conference.*



> America's armed forces are performing brilliantly, with all the skill and honor we expect of them. We're constantly reviewing their needs. Troop strength, now and in the future, is determined by the situation on the ground. If additional forces are needed, I will send them. If additional resources are needed, we will provide them. The people of our country are united behind our men and women in uniform, and this government will do all that is necessary to assure the success of their historic mission.
> 
> One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqi people. We have set a deadline of June 30th. It is important that we meet that deadline. As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation -- and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power, as nations in Europe and Asia can attest, as well. America's objective in Iraq is limited, and it is firm: We seek an independent, free and secure Iraq.
> 
> Were the coalition to step back from the June 30th pledge, many Iraqis would question our intentions and feel their hopes betrayed. And those in Iraq who trade in hatred and conspiracy theories would find a larger audience and gain a stronger hand. We will not step back from our pledge. On June 30th, Iraqi sovereignty will be placed in Iraqi hands.
> 
> Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future. Iraqi authorities are now confronting the security challenge of the last several weeks. In Fallujah, coalition forces have suspended offensive operations, allowing members of the Iraqi Governing Council and local leaders to work on the restoration of central authority in that city. These leaders are communicating with the insurgents to ensure an orderly turnover of that city to Iraqi forces, so that the resumption of military action does not become necessary. They're also insisting that those who killed and mutilated four American contract workers be handed over for trial and punishment. In addition, members of the Governing Council are seeking to resolve the situation in the south. Al-Sadr must answer the charges against him and disband his illegal militia.
> 
> Our coalition is standing with responsible Iraqi leaders as they establish growing authority in their country. The transition to sovereignty requires that we demonstrate confidence in Iraqis, and we have that confidence.



Bush also said in that excerpt: "Sovereignty involves more than a date and a ceremony. *It requires Iraqis to assume responsibility for their own future*. Iraqi authorities are now confronting the security challenge of the last several weeks"


Yet you are saying that 8 years later it is President Barack Obama of the United States of American is responsible for Iraq's future. Are you nuts?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11221216 





eagle1462010 said:


> Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office #3687



No it was not secure and specifically in Mosul it was very fragile. 

*US forces withdrawing from Iraqi cities will move instead to encircle them*  -  The troops will form 'belts' around volatile cities like Mosul, where some fear gains in stability will be lost when US troops pull out on June 30.  By Jane Arraf, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor June 26, 2009



> Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of the 25th Infantry Division, says in an interview that he is watching closely to see whether a recent spike in attacks will continue after the June 30 deadline for US combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.



Do you know why US forces had to pull out of Iraq cities by June 30


Gen Rober Caslen explains why:




> *Concerns raised over withdrawal from Mosul*
> 
> US and Iraqi forces are believed to have severely disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq's network, but as *the military surge in 2007 and 2008 pushed AQI fighters and other insurgents out of Baghdad, they moved north to Ninevah and *





> *Diyala Provinces**.*
> 
> While the rest of the country has enjoyed relative stability, Mosul and Baquba in particular have raised concerns that a *blanket policy of withdrawing combat troops* from populated areas under *a wide-ranging security agreement* might set back hard-won gains in those cities.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Now who negotiatiated that wide ranging security agreement? Bush or Obama? Mosul was not stable in 2008 when Bush agreed to pull US troops out of Mosul in six months from sighing the agreement. The Iraqis did not ask our troops to stay in Mosul either. They could have but they didn't . Sorry Bush's fault not Obama's


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagl 11221216
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office #3687
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it was not secure and specifically in Mosul it was very fragile.
> 
> *US forces withdrawing from Iraqi cities will move instead to encircle them*  -  The troops will form 'belts' around volatile cities like Mosul, where some fear gains in stability will be lost when US troops pull out on June 30.  By Jane Arraf, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor June 26, 2009
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of the 25th Infantry Division, says in an interview that he is watching closely to see whether a recent spike in attacks will continue after the June 30 deadline for US combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know why US forces had to pull out of Iraq cities by June 30
> 
> 
> Gen Rober Caslen explains why:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Concerns raised over withdrawal from Mosul*
> 
> US and Iraqi forces are believed to have severely disrupted Al Qaeda in Iraq's network, but as *the military surge in 2007 and 2008 pushed AQI fighters and other insurgents out of Baghdad, they moved north to Ninevah and *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Diyala Provinces**.*
> 
> While the rest of the country has enjoyed relative stability, Mosul and Baquba in particular have raised concerns that a *blanket policy of withdrawing combat troops* from populated areas under *a wide-ranging security agreement* might set back hard-won gains in those cities.
> [/QUOTE
> 
> Now who negotiatiated that wide ranging security agreement? Bush or Obama? Mosul was not stable in 2008 when Bush agreed to pull US troops out of Mosul in six months from sighing the agreement. The Iraqis did not ask our troops to stay in Mosul either. They could have but they didn't . Sorry Bush's fault not Obama's
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

From your own quote..............."might set back hard won gains in those cities."

aka the military saying it's a bad idea.  They withdrew from those cities under Obama's watch, and there were Iraqi Forces in those cities.  This isn't a full withdrawal either, but turning over these cities to Iraqi military control.  Forces should have been kept in Iraq as recommended by the military...................

Back at you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

SIL 11220034 





SassyIrishLass said:


> Of course he won't "start a war" pussies with no balls don't do that, meanwhile civilians (you know the ones you leftist assholes whine and moan about) are getting slaughtered. Well done, Foo....you're backing a limp wrist asshole. But I expected nothing less for someone that refused to serve.  #3681



You wanted Obama to think with his balls to start a new war in Iraq to combat Daesh terrorist scum early last year by re-invasion of US ground combat troops in order to support Maliki's continued oppression of all Sunnis and his incompetence at maintaining a competent and ready-to-fight Iraqi army.

Iraq did not and still does not want US ground troops involved in the direct fight against Daesh.

Sending US ground troops to fight and forced back into Iraq by invasion against Iraq's sovereignty would have been horrible news for Iraq's civilian population.

Here's the facts in numbers, since numbers don't lie and they cannot be twisted into lies.

Since the day that all US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been around *33,000 * Iraq civilians killed. Perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh terrorist scum attacks and bombings. Perhaps you do not understand numbers SassyIrishLass?
*
However most body counting organizations count at least 120,000* *Iraqis were killed* *when US combat troops were present in Iraq from 2003 through 2011. *

So it was about *four times worse* when US troops were killing and dying in Iraq than since they left when all US troops were pulled out on Bush's deadline date.

So you are arguing for more civilian deaths by wanting a US president to a have his brain located in his balls instead of where it belongs like you conservatives prefer.

Your argument that Iraq would be better off with US ground troops is belied by this reality. But being a conservative "reality" is none of your concern when it comes to Obama bashing.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> SIL 11220034
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he won't "start a war" pussies with no balls don't do that, meanwhile civilians (you know the ones you leftist assholes whine and moan about) are getting slaughtered. Well done, Foo....you're backing a limp wrist asshole. But I expected nothing less for someone that refused to serve.  #3681
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You wanted Obama to think with his balls to start a new war in Iraq to combat Daesh terrorist scum early last year by re-invasion of US ground combat troops in order to support Maliki's continued oppression of all Sunnis and his incompetence at maintaining a competent and ready-to-fight Iraqi army.
> 
> Iraq did not and still does not want US ground troops involved in the direct fight against Daesh.
> 
> Sending US ground troops to fight and forced back into Iraq by invasion against Iraq's sovereignty would have been horrible news for Iraq's civilian population.
> 
> Here's the facts in numbers, since numbers don't lie and they cannot be twisted into lies.
> 
> Since the day that all US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been around *33,000 * Iraq civilians killed. Perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh terrorist scum attacks and bombings. Perhaps you do not understand numbers SassyIrishLass?
> *
> However most body counting organizations count at least 120,000* *Iraqis were killed* *when US combat troops were present in Iraq from 2003 through 2011. *
> 
> So it was about *four times worse* when US troops were killing and dying in Iraq than since they left when all US troops were pulled out on Bush's deadline date.
> 
> So you are arguing for more civilian deaths by wanting a US president to a have his brain located in his balls instead of where it belongs like you conservatives prefer.
> 
> Your argument that Iraq would be better off with US ground troops is belied by this reality. But being a conservative "reality" is none of your concern when it comes to Obama bashing.
Click to expand...

Your 4 times as worse probably shows your math skills...........2 times would be the better assessment.

120,000 deaths over 8 years.  15,000 per year

33,000 deaths over 4 years.  8.250 a year.

Less than double the average per year.........so 4 times is an overstatement, and it doesn't take into account the initial War and assaults taking the country by force.  During this time more civilian deaths will occur.  It also doesn't take into account who's killing who.

Iraq Body Count

A more accurate way to determine the deaths per year and who killed who.............The Insurgents were doing almost all the killing.............Not the coalition troops.........Click it and see for yourself about who was killing..........In the surge and increased combat operations 2006 and 2007 civilian casualties increased about 2.5 times normal average due to increased fighting to drive Insurgents out of the country.  Under Petraeus the U.S. forces increased in size and scope during these years to counter the Insurgents.......During this time U.S. forces stayed in place after battles to hold ground instead of retreating to safe zones to ensure the Insurgents didn't harm civilians and plant new explosives after they were gone.  This strategy reduced the violence over time as Insurgent losses increased due to the Strategy..........

Yet this was the man that MEDIA MATTERS DAMNED CALLING HIM BETRAY US..............Later to be 
shown as the Great Strategist under Obama..........The same damned HYPOCRITES from the LEFT THRASHED THE MAN UNDER BUSH, and PRAISED HIM UNDER OBAMA............and he is exactly why the death tolls dropped in Iraq...............

Yet your side now claims how Obama did it.  HYPOCRITES ONE AND ALL.


----------



## eagle1462010

Iraq War troop surge of 2007 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

*2006 election[edit]*
Polls showed that after the 2006 general election, “A substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they [won] control of Congress”.[12] This view of the election as a referendum on the war was endorsed by Democratic leaderNancy Pelosi who in the final days of the campaign said, “This election is about Iraq. If indeed it turns out the way that people expect it to turn out, the American people will have spoken, and they will have rejected the course of action the president is on.”[13] The news media viewed the Democratic victory in both houses of the US Congress as “punishing President George W. Bush and his Republicans over ethics scandals in Washington and a failing war in Iraq.”[14]

*Democratic position[edit]*
After her party's victory then House Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi (who would a month later make clear her disdain for the "surge proposal"[15]) wrote an article entitled "Bringing the War to an End is my Highest Priority as Speaker". The article explained that after visiting wounded Iraq War veterans at the Bethesda Naval Medical Center, "I left there more committed than ever to bringing the war to an end. I told my colleagues yesterday that the biggest ethical issue facing our country for the past three and a half years is the war in Iraq. ...When the House reconvenes on January 4, 2007, Democrats will take power and I will take the gavel knowing the responsibility we have to you and to the country. The new Democratic Congress will live up to the highest ethical standard... [we] are prepared to lead and ready to govern. We will honor the trust of the American people; we will not disappoint."[16]

*Republican position[edit]*
Following the 2006 United States midterm elections where the Republicans lost control of the House and Senate, aHeritage Foundation conference was chaired by Republican whip Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) under the title "The New Way Forward: Refocusing the Conservative Agenda" on November 9, 2006 to analyze "setbacks" from the election results. Blunt bemoaned the fact Republicans had "become the defenders rather than the challengers of business as usual."[17]

Blunt opened his speech listing the oft voiced explanations of his party's defeat which included that the results were in part “a referendum on the war in Iraq”. He dismissed the notion that any one single reason explained the loss, saying “Different candidates lost for different reasons”. He saw a bright side in events saying “The good news is that even with these shortcomings, low presidential approval numbers, and uncertainty about Iraq, our candidates saw, even with all those things happening, their ideas taking hold in the final days of their campaigns. A shift of 78,000 votes in the entire country would have changed the outcome. Our ideas didn’t get beat; in fact, we did.” He applauded the Constitutional system saying the defeat proves “that no one party has a permanent claim to power…This means any viable political movement, such as ours, can never afford to become stagnant or complacent. We must constantly refresh our ideas, assess our performance, and make corrections when necessary. This is a great moment to do all three of those things. For a generation Reagan conservatives have consistently demonstrated an ability to do just that. Nowhere has this been more evident than in our response to the threats of Islamic totalitarianism and the fight with our terrorist enemies.” He said “While the threats of Islamic totalitarianism at times require different tactics, we are approaching those challenges with the same resolve that allowed us to defeat communism. I am convinced that in this fight we will also prevail because the American people understand the need to win. We must continue to lead the fight against Islamic totalitarianism and sustain the will to win the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. …[On the war and on domestic issues] Our plan must avoid the mistakes of the past several years. …I am confident that we will successfully move forward.”[18]


----------



## eagle1462010

Contrast in Strategies in Iraq................

In 2006, Pelosi backed by Dems were saying it FAILED...............and that they would just give the Fuck Up.  Had they Won in 2006 they would have withdrawn the forces back then.  They were openly stating this.........

In other words, the Democratic Strategy WAS CUT TAIL AND RUN.............not DIG IN AND FIGHT and try to WIN THE WAR...................During this time they were using Propaganda like this..............






Your side proved what it wanted under Obama...........FULL WITHDRAWAL and BE DAMNED THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH ACTION.

If the Dems would have Won in 2006...............Iraq would have been lost by the next election..........Instead Petraeus took control and limited the violence there.........even though the Civil War there was still ongoing..................

Dem strategy............


----------



## eagle1462010

iCasualties Operation Enduring Freedom Afghanistan

Shows coalition losses......including the names of those killed in action and from what country.

In Afghanistan our losses increased under the Surge in Afghanistan.  As Obama used the surge strategy there because it was working in Iraq...............aka following in the foot steps of Petraeus strategy in Iraq...........since it was working there, they were ready to go forward with it in Afghanistan.

I don't see you complaining about the surge there Natty............Why............because it happened under Obama and suddenly increased U.S. force deployment is Righteous to your side......................

HYPOCRITES.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Eagl 11222600 





eagle1462010 said:


> From your own quote..............."might set back hard won gains in those cities."



I know. You started another line of argument here:



> eagl 11221216 ↑Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office #3687.



That is why I told you the truth:  "No it was not secure and specifically in Mosul it was very fragile.

As proof Mosul was not secure I cited the commander of the 25th Infantry Division,  here:



> Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of the 25th Infantry Division, says in an interview that he is watching closely to see whether a recent spike in attacks will continue after the June 30 deadlinefor US combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.



Then I pointedly asked you this question: "Do you know why US forces had to pull out of Iraq cities by June 30"

So apparently you still do not know why and I gave you the answer. Gen Robert Caslen explains why:

*Diyala Provinces**.  *While the rest of the country has enjoyed relative stability, Mosul and Baquba in particular have raised concerns that a *blanket policy of withdrawing combat troops* from populated areas under *a wide-ranging security agreement* might set back hard-won gains in those cities. [/QUOTE]

Then I followed up with this: "Now who negotiatiated that wide ranging security agreement? Bush or Obama? Mosul was not stable in 2008 when Bush agreed to pull US troops out of Mosul in six months from signing the agreement. The Iraqis did not ask our troops to stay in Mosul either. "

So if Obama violated the terms of the SOFA and sent combat troops back into Mosul - the Iraqis would have accused Obama of breaking the 2008 agreement and violating Iraq's sovereignty and therefore demand all US troops leave within one year. Such was the deal that Bush signed.

But Mosul was definitely not stable. So you lied again. You got a pretty good string of lies going on here. I shall put them all on your record.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Eagl 11222600
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From your own quote..............."might set back hard won gains in those cities."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know. You started another line of argument here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagl 11221216 ↑Northern Iraq was secure, not taken by ISIL, when Obama took office #3687.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is why I told you the truth:  "No it was not secure and specifically in Mosul it was very fragile.
> 
> As proof Mosul was not secure I cited the commander of the 25th Infantry Division,  here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gen. Robert Caslen, commander of the 25th Infantry Division, says in an interview that he is watching closely to see whether a recent spike in attacks will continue after the June 30 deadlinefor US combat troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then I pointedly asked you this question: "Do you know why US forces had to pull out of Iraq cities by June 30"
> 
> So apparently you still do not know why and I gave you the answer. Gen Rober Caslen explains why:
> 
> *Diyala Provinces**.  *While the rest of the country has enjoyed relative stability, Mosul and Baquba in particular have raised concerns that a *blanket policy of withdrawing combat troops* from populated areas under *a wide-ranging security agreement* might set back hard-won gains in those cities.
Click to expand...


Then I followed up with this: "Now who negotiatiated that wide ranging security agreement? Bush or Obama? Mosul was not stable in 2008 when Bush agreed to pull US troops out of Mosul in six months from sighing the agreement. The Iraqis did not ask our troops to stay in Mosul either. "

So if Obama violated the terms if the SOFA and sent combat troops back into Mosul - the Iraqis would have accused Obama of breaking the 2008 agreement and violating Iraq's sovereignty and there for demand all US troops leave within one year. Such was the deal that Bush signed.

But Mosul was definitely not stable. So you lied again. You got a pretty good string of lies going on here. I shall put them all on your record.[/QUOTE]
You can file those complaints at the office.............check the 3rd port-o-let on the right and drop off your complaints at the basement.

Your main complaint is that these areas were unstable...............  My main point was that they WERE UNDER IRAQI AND U.S. CONTROL..................The Sectretarian violence there was still ongoing but had lessened under the Petraeus Plan...................

That doesn't mean that there wouldn't still be fighting between Shiite and Sunni...........not by a long shot.....................and whether you like it or not these areas were TAKEN by our forces and still held when our people were withdrawn....................Full withdrawal under SOFA has been the RALLYING CRY of people like you on why the place went to shit under Obama................

Saying Obama was only doing the BUSH STRATEGY...............It was SOFA.........A SOFA........A SOFA OF BUSH

BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH

Here's a suggestion for you Natty me boy..............Why don't you elect someone who stands on his own instead of making EXCUSES FOR HIS OWN DECISIONS................Obama and the DEMS didn't want a NEW SOFA AGREEMENT................IRAQ KNEW Obama wanted a FULL WITHDRAWAL................which is why no damned new agreement was ever drawn.

Your side wanted to capitulate in 2006.

Your side said the surge would never work.

Your side slammed Petraeus and the Pentagon for a surge strategy that later worked............

The surrender flag is your sides solution to WINNING A WAR..............and it happened under Obama's watch.


----------



## eagle1462010




----------



## eagle1462010

Listen to Obama...........Immediately remove the troops.

aka CAPITULATE 


You can't hide from the Dem strategies before and after your side took the WH...........

and given that they felt this way, why would they surge in Afghanistan...............

Because there is Civil War style violence there as well..............


----------



## eagle1462010

YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK CAMPAIGN SPEECH................OBAMA


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Did you see this Eagle1


NF 9830646 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)
> 
> 
> 
> Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News
Click to expand...


----------



## eagle1462010

This is why I don't like Politicians from either side in a War...............They attack people like Petraeus over and over again...........Calling him a Traitor from the Far Left.............Saying his strategy would never work before it even started...............

Ask him to organize strategy for a War on Two fronts.........aka giving orders and commands to subordinates in both Iraq and  Afghanistan while being grilled by Congress over and over again, day in and day out..............To answer the same questions usually over and over again...........

Until he can't take the burning of the candles at both ends and finally actually PASSES OUT DURING QUESTIONING........................

Generals strive to WIN WARS.............Politicians strive for Politics............the Dem side is to cut and run at all costs...............

The Dems strategy was to leave...............PERIOD...........BACK IN 2006, and not even give the surge strategy a CHANCE AT ALL............Their words..........CUT OUR LOSSES AND LEAVE.

anyway.......here's the video of the General passing out.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Did you see this Eagle1
> 
> 
> NF 9830646
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)
> 
> 
> 
> Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know about these...............look at the date.....................

We hauled ass in Iraq under Obama...............COMPLETELY.............didn't offer to help when the North started falling...................came in late in the game ONLY AFTER we witnessed Atrocities under ISIL.............and only started bombing after it became political.............

In 2014 the Shiites didn't want us there because we had already ABANDONED THEM...........they had no reason to trust us anymore.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Did you see this Eagle1?

NF 9830646 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)



Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News

You want Obama to negotiate with these guys. You are not really knowledgeable about Iraq are you. You ought to admit it and give up making a fool out of yourself more each day that passes.

You need to listen to Obama and let the grown ups and the Shiites themselves deal with it.



I see nothing wrong with Iraqis fighting their own fight on the ground an not one spec of  a US soldier's blood should be spilled on the ground.  I have no problem with the world's finest fighter pilots giving all kinds of an assist from a mile up...

If IS terrorists want to fight an American let him learn to fly a fighter plane and come on up and see how they do. #449   [/QUOTE]

It shows that your claim about Northern Iraq being stable when Bush left his mess to Obama is false.

Even after ISIS tore across Northern Iraq in September 2014 The Shiites that lived there would have fought against US troops if they attempted to get involved. You have no line of logic through your entire argument that blames Obama for the Daesh terrorist scum reaping havoc in northern and western Iraq last summer. You have no clue whatsoever as to what is going on. And you still have not diverted me away from your failed argument on the topic of this thread. I'll get back to that when I get back from a fifty mile bike ride.

Try thinking during these gaps that I am allowing you to have.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> They attack people like Petraeus over and over again...........Calling him a Traitor from the Far Left.............




I supported General Petraeus from the day I heard him testify in the US Sentate in September 2007.  He said to get out of Iraq we had to sit down and negotiate with Muqtada al Sadr even though his fighters had American blood on their hands. And that is what happened. Sadr was an Iraqi nationalist that stayed in Iraq although his father was killed by Saddam Hussein. Sadr was relentlessly against the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and found a way with Petraeus to force Bush to sign the agreement in December 2008 that all US troops were to leave Iraq cities by June 2009 and all US troops were to be gone by the end of 2011.  That was the smartest thing Bush ever did in Iraq. Petraeus said we cannot kill or capture are way out of Iraq and he was right and Bush listened to him.

*Interview: General David Petraeus | Kill/Capture ... - PBS*
PBS Public Broadcasting Service › FRONTLINE › Afghanistan / Pakistan › Kill/Capture

Jun 14, 2011 - “And the best way to do something about it is to use every tool ... Of course it's often said, and I often say, you don't _*kill or capture your way out*_ of an industrial-strength insurgency, .....    #3705


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Did you see this Eagle1?
> 
> NF 9830646
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18, 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli, in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad (AFP Photo/)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iraqi Shiite militants demonstrate on September 18 2014 against any US intervention in Iraq in the Shiite Turkmen-majority town of Amerli in the Tikrit region north of Baghdad View photo - Yahoo News
> 
> You want Obama to negotiate with these guys. You are not really knowledgeable about Iraq are you. You ought to admit it and give up making a fool out of yourself more each day that passes.
> 
> You need to listen to Obama and let the grown ups and the Shiites themselves deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> I see nothing wrong with Iraqis fighting their own fight on the ground an not one spec of  a US soldier's blood should be spilled on the ground.  I have no problem with the world's finest fighter pilots giving all kinds of an assist from a mile up...
> 
> If IS terrorists want to fight an American let him learn to fly a fighter plane and come on up and see how they do. #449
Click to expand...


It shows that your claim about Northern Iraq being stable when Bush left his mess to Obama is false.

Even after ISIS tore across Northern Iraq in September 2014 The Shiites that lived there would have fought against US troops if they attempted to get involved. You have no line of logic through your entire argument that blames Obama for the Daesh terrorist scum reaping havoc in northern and western Iraq last summer. You have no clue whatsoever as to what is going on. And you still have not diverted me away from your failed argument on the topic of this thread. I'll get back to that when I get back from a fifty mile bike ride.

Try thinking during these gaps that I am allowing you to have.[/QUOTE]
1.  This OP is about Iran.
2.  This OP has been diverted to but BUSH.
3.  This situation in Iraq is because we withdrew from the region under Obama.
4.  My posts are putting the blame where they belong, to Obama and the Dems.
5.  Iran's influence in Iraq has grown because we left.
6.  Iraqi's don't want us there anymore because we ditched them and they don't trust us anymore.
7.  The only reason they had a Northern territory to lose was because of the surge in 2006/2007.
8.  Iran's strategy of supplying insurgents in Iraq was to get us to leave.
9.  Iran's strategy worked, we left under Obama.
10.  Iran's strategy is to gain control of the region.  Pushing violence in the region on both sides.  It's purpose..
       to get us out of there and gain control.
11.  Iran's strategy worked..........now Iranian and Iraqi forces are fighting side by side.
12.  Iran and Iraq's populations are primarily Shiite.
13.  ISIL is primarily Sunni.
14.  Our strategy has guaranteed more Iranian influence in the region.
15.  Iran wants a Nuclear bomb.
16.  The west doesn't want them having one.
17.  Iran has a history of Lying........will not honor a deal.
18.  Useless to cut a deal when the Sanctions are our best hope to stop them short of attacking them.
19.  The United States has NO TRADE WITH IRAN ANYWAY..........It's BANNED..........So any Sanctions 
       that are meaningful require other countries to stop trading.
20.  Russia, China, North Korea..............are already disregarding the Sanctions.....supplying and selling
       Nuclear tech and weapons tech to Iran anyway.
21.  Our options.........Try to get  countries to Sanction Iran.......primarily the one's already mentioned....
       which has a snow balls chance in hell of happening.............get Iran to sign a deal that says..........We'll be
       nice...........honest..............given the history of Lying and their stated goals..........has a snow balls chance in
       hell as well................military options.............allow and support Israel in strikes against the Nuclear sites 
       and then Veto the UN bitching over it..............or directly hit the sites with U.S. airstrikes or missiles........

The military options are the only viable options to stop them from getting the bomb.  Unless Unicorns and ferries go to countries selling tech to Iran and spread PIXIE DUST ON THEM..............

History will show..............just like Clinton...........that Obama's legacy was Iran getting the bomb........even if it happens a short time after he leaves office..............this deal.......if it happens..............will be the final straw towards that path.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11223196  





eagle1462010 said:


> In 2014 the Shiites didn't want us there because we had already ABANDONED THEM...........they had no reason to trust us anymore.  #3703



In 2008 it was the largest elected Shiite political bloc in parliament (the Sadrists) th. at wanted US troops to leave immediately. They even opposed the deal that Bush signed allowing US troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq cities almost immediately and withdraw completely by the end of 2011.  It was the Shiite Sadrists that put and kept Maliki in power.

So you got another lie going. The majority of Shiites did not want us in Iraq most of the time we were there and specifically in 2008 when matters got put to a vote.  Had they wanted us there Bush could have gotten a long term SOFA and all the bases that Bush originally wanted to keep there.  Bush had to settle to what amounted to a surrender with a three year drawdown period because of Shiite opposition to the US occupation of Iraq under Bush.

You are getting worse and worse with your knowledge of the facts about Iraq.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They attack people like Petraeus over and over again...........Calling him a Traitor from the Far Left.............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I supported General Petraeus from the day I heard him testify in the US Sentate in September 2007.  He said to get out of Iraq we had to sit down and negotiate with Muqtada al Sadr even though his fighters had American blood on their hands. And that is what happened. Sadr was an Iraqi nationalist that stayed in Iraq although his father was killed by Saddam Hussein. Sadr was relentlessly against the US invasion and occupation of Iraq and found a way with Petraeus to force Bush to sign the agreement in December 2008 that all US troops were to leave Iraq cities by June 2009 and all US troops were to be gone by the end of 2011.  That was the smartest thing Bush ever did in Iraq. Petraeus said we cannot kill or capture are way out of Iraq and he was right and Bush listened to him.
> 
> *Interview: General David Petraeus | Kill/Capture ... - PBS*
> PBS Public Broadcasting Service › FRONTLINE › Afghanistan / Pakistan › Kill/Capture
> 
> Jun 14, 2011 - “And the best way to do something about it is to use every tool ... Of course it's often said, and I often say, you don't _*kill or capture your way out*_ of an industrial-strength insurgency, .....    #3705
Click to expand...

Cherry picking his strategy...........he said that primarily about Afghanistan.

His plan to win in Iraq...........was a surge..............more intel..............and to hold ground once taken and not leave..................Past strategy was to move in, kill insurgents and then go back to safe zones.................He stated why should the population help us if we leave them to be killed at night once we leave..............

His forces took and held these places, no longer going to safe zones.............gaining some trust from the locals because they were no longer leaving them to the wolves at night...........

because of this, they started coming forward with info to help intel find and kill the enemy.............

You need to look at the new attacks on insurgents once it started working..........

You say he said you can't kill or capture  your way out of insurgency...............Well under his strategy we were killing insurgents at a far greater rate than ever before...........as they died the violence went down.............

Now to the future.................The Generals, Pentagon, CENTCOM, warned Obama............about what would happen with a full withdrawal from Iraq................They were RIGHT AGAIN...........AND OBAMA WAS WRONG.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagl 11223196
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2014 the Shiites didn't want us there because we had already ABANDONED THEM...........they had no reason to trust us anymore.  #3703
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2008 it was the largest elected Shiite political bloc in parliament (the Sadrists) th. at wanted US troops to leave immediately. They even opposed the deal that Bush signed allowing US troops to begin withdrawing from Iraq cities almost immediately and withdraw completely by the end of 2011.  It was the Shiite Sadrists that put and kept Maliki in power.
> 
> So you got another lie going. The majority of Shiites did not want us in Iraq most of the time we were there and specifically in 2008 when matters got put to a vote.  Had they wanted us there Bush could have gotten a long term SOFA and all the bases that Bush originally wanted to keep there.  Bush had to settle to what amounted to a surrender with a three year drawdown period because of Shiite opposition to the US occupation of Iraq under Bush.
> 
> You are getting worse and worse with your knowledge of the facts about Iraq.
Click to expand...

Facts...............BS..................you only look at anything that defends the one..........OBAMA...

You say you supported Petraeus...................that means you must have supported the surge...............hmmmm

Which means you were against Obama, Biden, Hillary, Reid, and the rest because they all said NO...............

I don't believe you..............that is an opinion.................didn't see your posts back then................but I imagine from your posts here...............that you were YELLING HITLER BUSH with all the rest and laughing at Petraeus ads.........................I think you are Lying to me.

Yes I calling you a Liar......................

Obama and the Dems didn't support the strategy............challenged Petraus over and over again.......shouting down that IT WOULD NEVER WORK...........DAMNING PETRAEOUS IN SOME......................

Then when it worked....................WE LOVE YOU MAN...............WE LOVE YOU PETRAUS...........

HYPOCRITES...............and the ones whose policy caused the loss of Northern Iraq.............and the same DUMB ASSES WHO WILL LET IRAN GET THE BOMB.


----------



## eagle1462010

whether you like it or not..........Bush was correct in 2007............predicted what would happen should we leave early or not honor or word...........

spot on.......happening today.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> 2. This OP has been diverted to *but BUSH*.




Chronological order of "Bush" being brought up in this thread:



iamwhatiseem said:


> No Stat...if Bush did something like what Obama is doing - ALL of you guys would be screaming bloody murder.






NotfooledbyW said:


> _Iranian military advisors rubbed shoulders with U.S. military personnel in the Northern Alliance areas. Tehran even said it would give sanctuary for distressed U.S. military personnel inside its territory. It also allowed the United States to transport humanitarian goods to Afghanistan through Iranian land. Iran reportedly suggested the best targets for U.S. bombers.  <> "U.S. and Iranian envoys worked together at the conference--the most fruitful encounter between the two since the 1979 revolution. Both wanted Afghanistan free of the Taliban and al Qaeda. " *See PBS Link below*_:  <>  It's too bad what Bush did to that relationship:






eagle1462010 said:


> During the Iraq War..................under Bush...........they got the Iranians to agree to stop giving the IED weapons and tech...........to the insurgents ........................  Didn't work........... they kept doing it...................




QUOTE="Slyhunter, post: 11182750, member: 49398"]Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush.[/QUOTE]




NotfooledbyW said:


> If any of this was going on it was during the Bush Administrations. Why didn't he stop it?   <>  And Bush couldn't get Saddam's second in command al Douri. Its looking like Obama policy got him yesterday, pending DNA reports.  .





eagl 11216400, 





eagle1462010 said:


> ...........*BUT BUSH*..............again deflection to defend Obama as the Iranians are still doing this.................. #3671






Eagl 11217860 





eagle1462010 said:


> <>  Your position is BUT BUSH............*When Bush left office Iraq was intact*..............wasn't it.  #3678





You are the one who diverted it to "But Bush"  if we do not count Slyhunter's 'whine' .


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. This OP has been diverted to *but BUSH*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chronological order of "Bush" being brought up in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Stat...if Bush did something like what Obama is doing - ALL of you guys would be screaming bloody murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Iranian military advisors rubbed shoulders with U.S. military personnel in the Northern Alliance areas. Tehran even said it would give sanctuary for distressed U.S. military personnel inside its territory. It also allowed the United States to transport humanitarian goods to Afghanistan through Iranian land. Iran reportedly suggested the best targets for U.S. bombers.  <> "U.S. and Iranian envoys worked together at the conference--the most fruitful encounter between the two since the 1979 revolution. Both wanted Afghanistan free of the Taliban and al Qaeda. " *See PBS Link below*_:  <>  It's too bad what Bush did to that relationship:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the Iraq War..................under Bush...........they got the Iranians to agree to stop giving the IED weapons and tech...........to the insurgents ........................  Didn't work........... they kept doing it...................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> QUOTE="Slyhunter, post: 11182750, member: 49398"]Never said it did. Misrepresenting my words just like you people did with Bush.
Click to expand...





NotfooledbyW said:


> If any of this was going on it was during the Bush Administrations. Why didn't he stop it?   <>  And Bush couldn't get Saddam's second in command al Douri. Its looking like Obama policy got him yesterday, pending DNA reports.  .





eagl 11216400, 





eagle1462010 said:


> ...........*BUT BUSH*..............again deflection to defend Obama as the Iranians are still doing this.................. #3671






Eagl 11217860 





eagle1462010 said:


> <>  Your position is BUT BUSH............*When Bush left office Iraq was intact*..............wasn't it.  #3678





You are the one who diverted it to "But Bush"  if we do not count Slyhunter's 'whine' .[/QUOTE]
Whatever.............who ever started it doesn't matter...........It is your side that usually brings it up...........

It's one of your favorite catch all lines................and you never replied to the video's of your side ditching Petraus arguing against the surge.........................You said you supported it..............

Which by default means you were against the position of Dems at the time....................

Which I have stated that I don't believe you....................I could post the reports and recomendations from the Generals, Pentagon, Centcom..............saying DON'T LEAVE IRAQ or this will happen..............and you will ignore them or divert to something else trying to change the subject..................

Squirming would be a more appropriate term.........................Obama not listening to the Generals are why we are here today............and why Iran now has a greater influence there...................because the Politicians yet again ditched the military's opinions and recommendations and chose Politics over strategy to win...............or at least stop what is happening today.............

Then your side, and you...................say it's BUSH'S FAULT..........BUT BUSH and NOT OBAMA'S fault because of deals he was pushing when in office...............

Perhaps then Obama should have INVITED BUSH BACK TO THE WH TO ASK HIM HOW TO LEAD.........................Because OBVIOUSLY your side blames someone NO LONGER IN OFFICE for the decisions of the ones making the decisions....................

Perhaps your side needs to pick someone that is better at Golf than Military decisions.............as Obama is incompetent................


----------



## eagle1462010

Bottom line.............I've given the 4 possible options with Iran...............I've ditched 2 as I believe they will never work..................

and have stated yet again...............that if you want to prevent Iran from getting the bomb..........then the sites will have to be taken out.............either by Israel or the United States..........................

Otherwise..............history will show who's right and whose wrong...............You will unfortunately lose that argument in time...................and I HOPE THE HELL I'M WRONG.........................

I actually HOPE YOU ARE RIGHT...............Realism over FANTASY is my position..............Now proceed with your unicorns and pixie dust.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*not going to kill or capture - Petraeus*

"You're not going to kill or capture all of the Sadr militia anymore than we are going to kill or capture all the insurgents in Iraq," Petraeus said. "Some of this is a little bit distasteful. It's not easy sitting across the table, let's say, or drinking tea with someone whose tribal members may have shot at our forces or in fact drawn the blood -- killed our forces."

eagl 11223566 





eagle1462010 said:


> Cherry picking his strategy...........he said that primarily about Afghanistan. . #3708



No you are sadly mistaken once again. Now that I show you the truth, if you repeat what you said, you will be lying.  I posted this in September 2007 when Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times wrote this report on September 12, 2007:




> *U.S. seeks pact with Shiite militia    <> *The military is in talks with elements of cleric Sadr's powerful group, which is accused of attacks against soldiers but which holds sway in much of Baghdad and parts of Iraq. By Ned Parker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer September 12, 2007   <>  BAGHDAD -- -- U.S. diplomats and military officers have been in talks with members of the armed movement loyal to Muqtada Sadr, a sharp reversal of policy and a grudging recognition that the radical Shiite cleric holds a dominant position in much of Baghdad and other parts of Iraq  <> The secret dialogue <*1}}has been going on since at least early 2006, <*1}} but appeared to yield a tangible result only in the last week -- with relative calm in an area of west Baghdad that has been among the capital's most dangerous sections. <> The discussions have been complicated by divisions within Sadr's movement as well as the cleric's public vow never to meet with Iraq's occupiers. Underlying the issue's sensitivity, Sadrists publicly deny any contact with the Americans or British -- fully aware the price of acknowledging such meetings would be banishment from the movement or worse.  <> The dialogue represents a drastic turnaround in the U.S. approach to Sadr and his militia, <*1}}the Mahdi Army. The military hopes to negotiate the same kind of marriage of convenience it has reached in other parts of Iraq with former insurgent groups, many Saddam Hussein loyalists, and the Sunni tribes that supported them. Both efforts are examples of how U.S. officials have sought to end violence by cooperating with groups they once considered intractable enemies.  <>  In 2004, U.S. officials branded Sadr an outlaw and demanded his arrest, sparking two major Shiite revolts in Baghdad and in the southern shrine city of Najaf that left more than a thousand dead. Last year, as the Bush administration developed its "surge" strategy, military planners said the campaign would a so target Shiite militias involved in sectarian killings. U.S. commanders later accused Iranian-backed elements of the Mahdi Army of carrying out deadly bomb attacks against U.S. forces and spearheading sectarian violence. <>  U.S. officials now feel they have no choice but to talk to the militia Despite its internal rifts, the Sadr movement is widely seen as the most powerful force in Baghdad. The Mahdi Army's grip is absolute on most of the capital's Shiite neighborhoods, where it sells fuel and electricity and rents houses, and it has reached deep inside the army and police. U.S. soldiers have marveled at the movement's ability to generate new leaders to replace almost every fighter they lock up.  <>  U.S. officials fear that failure to reach a political compromise with the Sadrists could have severe consequences once U.S. forces begin to pull back from their current high levels.  <>  "If there are no American troops and there is no American deal, the Mahdi Army seizes control of Baghdad. That's the vision. It's not a pleasant vision. It's a really bad vision. In situations like this, the most extreme elements tend to predominate," said a U.S. diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. <>  *In his testimony to Congress on Monday, Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, underscored the importance of reaching out to the Mahdi Army, deflecting a suggestion that the U.S. declare the movement a terrorist group.  <>  "You're not going to kill or capture all of the Sadr militia anymore than we are going to kill or capture all the insurgents in Iraq," Petraeus said. "Some of this is a little bit distasteful. It's not easy sitting across the table, let's say, or drinking tea with someone whose tribal members may have shot at our forces or in fact drawn the blood -- killed our forces."   <> *The White House is keen for a breakthrough. "There's a part of the Sadrist camp that is extremist and dedicated to killing us, and we need to kill them instead. But there are others who we think we might be able to work with," said an administration official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity.  <>    Officials point to their negotiations with Sunni insurgents as a model. The Sunnis, however, cooperated in large part because they had split with Al Qaeda in Iraq militants and needed U.S. help to battle them. By contrast, the Sadrists have yet to decide that they want a clear break from their more radical and lawless elements.  <>  Contacts with Sadr's followers have included clandestine meetings with U.S. Embassy officials in the fortified Green Zone and encounters on the street between low-level militia commanders and U.S. captains.  <>   This month's breakthrough came when Lt. Col. Patrick Frank, responsible for west Baghdad's dangerous Bayaa, Jihad and Amal neighborhoods, met Sept. 3 with tribal leaders belonging to the Mahdi Army at Camp Falcon, a sprawling U.S. base.   <>   To preserve the movement's posture of not negotiating with Americans, the tribal leaders did not discuss their affiliation, but their identity was well known. "The organization we are extending our hand to is the Jaish al Mahdi," Frank said, using the group's Arabic name. A Sadr follower in west Baghdad confirmed that Shiite and Sunni tribal leaders were in negotiations with the Americans for a truce in the area.    <>   The session, which brought together commanders, community officials and mostly Shiite leaders, was the fruit of talks initiated by the Sadrists in late July, Frank said in an interview.   <>   Moderate Sadrists involved in the Mahdi Army's social service network contacted U.S. forces through intermediaries, Frank said. The region was largely Sunni until the Mahdi Army began driving out residents and replacing them with Shiites last year.  <>   Since then, residents had grown unhappy that their neighborhood was the stage for shootouts and bombings. Some Sadr loyalists started passing tips to the Americans on militants.    <>    An opening for wider talks came with Sadr's announcement nearly two weeks ago that his militia would halt operations for six months to give it time to weed out alleged rogue elements. That call was in response to fighting between Sadr's followers and another Shiite militia in the holy city of Karbala that left 52 dead.   <>   "Once Muqtada Sadr issued his call for six months of nonviolence, we thought that went hand in hand with the initiative we were attempting to start," Frank said. "It did give us an opportunity that was very helpful to the discussion effort."  (Msg Id: 529805:877787)    2007 September 12 (PM) at 10:09 (09/12/07 10:09 PM) (Msg Id 522007 264660) by NotfooooldbyW end!!



I have supported and been impressed with Petraeus ever since this report came out. Some of us seek all sources to be informed about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is how I knew Bush was beginning to surrender in Iraq rather than try to kill and capture the US's way out of the mess in Iraq that Bush started. Obama was right first. Invading Iraq and taking the eye off the ball in Afghanistan.

I was not cherry picking. You owe me another apology for misrepresenting my point which was exactly true as I said.


----------



## Care4all

eagle1462010 said:


> whether you like it or not..........Bush was correct in 2007............predicted what would happen should we leave early or not honor or word...........
> 
> spot on.......happening today.


Actually this is what President Bush said on Iraq in the first week or so of January 2007.


president bush iraq speech ....I think he was trying to convince us that the ''Surge'' was necessary?

ByAlfonso SerranoCBSJanuary 10, 2007, 5:58 PM
*Full Transcript Of Bush's Iraq Speech*





_

*Below is the text of President Bush's speech on Iraq that he delivered on Wednesday night:*

Good evening. Tonight in Iraq, the Armed Forces of the United States are engaged in a struggle that will determine the direction of the global war on terror — and our safety here at home. The new strategy I outline tonight will change America's course in Iraq, and help us succeed in the fight against terror. 

When I addressed you just over a year ago, nearly 12 million Iraqis had cast their ballots for a unified and democratic nation. The elections of 2005 were a stunning achievement. We thought that these elections would bring the Iraqis together — and that as we trained Iraqi security forces, we could accomplish our mission with fewer American troops. 

But in 2006, the opposite happened. The violence in Iraq — particularly in Baghdad — overwhelmed the political gains the Iraqis had made. Al Qaeda terrorists and Sunni insurgents recognized the mortal danger that Iraq's elections posed for their cause, and they responded with outrageous acts of murder aimed at innocent Iraqis. They blew up one of the holiest shrines in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra — in a calculated effort to provoke Iraq's Shia population to retaliate. Their strategy worked. Radical Shia elements, some supported by Iran, formed death squads. And the result was a vicious cycle of sectarian violence that continues today.

The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me. Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me. 

It is clear that we need to change our strategy in Iraq. So my national security team, military commanders, and diplomats conducted a comprehensive review. We consulted Members of Congress from both parties, allies abroad, and distinguished outside experts. We benefited from the thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group — a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. In our discussions, we all agreed that there is no magic formula for success in Iraq. And one message came through loud and clear: Failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States. 

The consequences of failure are clear: Radical Islamic extremists would grow in strength and gain new recruits. They would be in a better position to topple moderate governments, create chaos in the region and use oil revenues to fund their ambitions. Iran would be emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities. For the safety of our people, America must succeed in Iraq. 

The most urgent priority for success in Iraq is security, especially in Baghdad. Eighty percent of Iraq's sectarian violence occurs within 30 miles of the capital. This violence is splitting Baghdad into sectarian enclaves and shaking the confidence of all Iraqis. Only the Iraqis can end the sectarian violence and secure their people. And their government has put forward an aggressive plan to do it. 

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have. Our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work.

Let me explain the main elements of this effort.

The Iraqi government will appoint a military commander and two deputy commanders for their capital. The Iraqi government will deploy Iraqi Army and National Police brigades across Baghdad's nine districts. When these forces are fully deployed, there will be 18 Iraqi Army and National Police brigades committed to this effort — along with local police. These Iraqi forces will operate from local police stations — conducting patrols, setting up checkpoints, and going door-to-door to gain the trust of Baghdad residents. 

This is a strong commitment. But for it to succeed, our commanders say the Iraqis will need our help. So America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad. This will require increasing American force levels. So I have committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq. The vast majority of them — five brigades — will be deployed to Baghdad. These troops will work alongside Iraqi units and be embedded in their formations. Our troops will have a well-defined mission: To help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs. 

Many listening tonight will ask why this effort will succeed when previous operations to secure Baghdad did not. Here are the differences: In earlier operations, Iraqi and American forces cleared many neighborhoods of terrorists and insurgents — but when our forces moved on to other targets, the killers returned. This time, we will have the force levels we need to hold the areas that have been cleared. In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter these neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated. 

I have made it clear to the Prime Minister and Iraq's other leaders that America's commitment is not open-ended. If the Iraqi government does not follow through on its promises, it will lose the support of the American people — and it will lose the support of the Iraqi people. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. Here is what he told his people just last week: "The Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."

This new strategy will not yield an immediate end to suicide bombings, assassinations, or IED attacks. Our enemies in Iraq will make every effort to ensure that our television screens are filled with images of death and suffering. Yet over time, we can expect to see Iraqi troops chasing down murderers, fewer brazen acts of terror, and growing trust and cooperation from Baghdad's residents. When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace — and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

A successful strategy for Iraq goes beyond military operations. Ordinary Iraqi citizens must see that military operations are accompanied by visible improvements in their neighborhoods and communities. So America will hold the Iraqi government to the benchmarks it has announced.

To establish its authority, the Iraqi government plans to take responsibility for security in all of Iraq's provinces by November. To give every Iraqi citizen a stake in the country's economy, Iraq will pass legislation to share oil revenues among all Iraqis. To show that it is committed to delivering a better life, the Iraqi government will spend $10 billion of its own money on reconstruction and infrastructure projects that will create new jobs. To empower local leaders, Iraqis plan to hold provincial elections later this year. And to allow more Iraqis to re-enter their nation's political life, the government will reform de-Baathification laws — and establish a fair process for considering amendments to Iraq's constitution. 

America will change our approach to help the Iraqi government as it works to meet these benchmarks. In keeping with the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, we will increase the embedding of American advisers in Iraqi Army units — and partner a Coalition brigade with every Iraqi Army division.

We will help the Iraqis build a larger and better-equipped army — and we will accelerate the training of Iraqi forces, which remains the essential U.S. security mission in Iraq. We will give our commanders and civilians greater flexibility to spend funds for economic assistance. We will double the number of provincial reconstruction teams. These teams bring together military and civilian experts to help local Iraqi communities pursue reconciliation, strengthen moderates, and speed the transition to Iraqi self reliance. And Secretary Rice will soon appoint a reconstruction coordinator in Baghdad to ensure better results for economic assistance being spent in Iraq.

As we make these changes, we will continue to pursue al Qaeda and foreign fighters. Al Qaeda is still active in Iraq. Its home base is Anbar Province. Al Qaeda has helped make Anbar the most violent area of Iraq outside the capital. A captured al Qaeda document describes the terrorists' plan to infiltrate and seize control of the province. This would bring al Qaeda closer to its goals of taking down Iraq's democracy, building a radical Islamic empire and launching new attacks on the United States at home and abroad. 

Our military forces in Anbar are killing and capturing al Qaeda leaders — and protecting the local population. Recently, local tribal leaders have begun to show their willingness to take on al Qaeda. As a result, our commanders believe we have an opportunity to deal a serious blow to the terrorists. So I have given orders to increase American forces in Anbar Province by 4,000 troops. These troops will work with Iraqi and tribal forces to step up the pressure on the terrorists. America's men and women in uniform took away al Qaeda's safe haven in Afghanistan — and we will not allow them to re-establish it in Iraq.

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity — and stabilizing the region in the face of the extremist challenge. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. 

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing — and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

We will use America's full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists — and a strategic threat to their survival. These nations have a stake in a successful Iraq that is at peace with its neighbors — and they must step up their support for Iraq's unity government. We endorse the Iraqi government's call to finalize an International Compact that will bring new economic assistance in exchange for greater economic reform. And on Friday, Secretary Rice will leave for the region — to build support for Iraq and continue the urgent diplomacy required to help bring peace to the Middle East.

The challenge playing out across the broader Middle East is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of our time. On one side are those who believe in freedom and moderation. On the other side are extremists who kill the innocent and have declared their intention to destroy our way of life. In the long run, the most realistic way to protect the American people is to provide a hopeful alternative to the hateful ideology of the enemy — by advancing liberty across a troubled region. It is in the interests of the United States to stand with the brave men and women who are risking their lives to claim their freedom and help them as they work to raise up just and hopeful societies across the Middle East. 

From Afghanistan to Lebanon to the Palestinian Territories, millions of ordinary people are sick of the violence and want a future of peace and opportunity for their children. And they are looking at Iraq. They want to know: Will America withdraw and yield the future of that country to the extremists — or will we stand with the Iraqis who have made the choice for freedom?

The changes I have outlined tonight are aimed at ensuring the survival of a young democracy that is fighting for its life in a part of the world of enormous importance to American security. Let me be clear: The terrorists and insurgents in Iraq are without conscience, and they will make the year ahead bloody and violent. Even if our new strategy works exactly as planned, deadly acts of violence will continue — and we must expect more Iraqi and American casualties. The question is whether our new strategy will bring us closer to success. I believe that it will. 

Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship. But victory in Iraq will bring something new in the Arab world — a functioning democracy that polices its territory, upholds the rule of law, respects fundamental human liberties and answers to its people. A democratic Iraq will not be perfect. But it will be a country that fights terrorists instead of harboring them — and it will help bring a future of peace and security for our children and grandchildren.

Our new approach comes after consultations with Congress about the different courses we could take in Iraq. Many are concerned that the Iraqis are becoming too dependent on the United States — and therefore, our policy should focus on protecting Iraq's borders and hunting down al Qaeda. Their solution is to scale back America's efforts in Baghdad or announce the phased withdrawal of our combat forces. We carefully considered these proposals. And we concluded that to step back now would force a collapse of the Iraqi government, tear that country apart, and result in mass killings on an unimaginable scale. Such a scenario would result in our troops being forced to stay in Iraq even longer, and confront an enemy that is even more lethal. If we increase our support at this crucial moment, and help the Iraqis break the current cycle of violence, we can hasten the day our troops begin coming home.

In the days ahead, my national security team will fully brief Congress on our new strategy. If members have improvements that can be made, we will make them. If circumstances change, we will adjust. Honorable people have different views, and they will voice their criticisms. It is fair to hold our views up to scrutiny. And all involved have a responsibility to explain how the path they propose would be more likely to succeed. 

Acting on the good advice of Sen. Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration, and it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress. We can begin by working together to increase the size of the active Army and Marine Corps, so that America has the armed forces we need for the 21st century. We also need to examine ways to mobilize talented American civilians to deploy overseas — where they can help build democratic institutions in communities and nations recovering from war and tyranny.

In these dangerous times, the United States is blessed to have extraordinary and selfless men and women willing to step forward and defend us. These young Americans understand that our cause in Iraq is noble and necessary — and that the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. They serve far from their families, who make the quiet sacrifices of lonely holidays and empty chairs at the dinner table. They have watched their comrades give their lives to ensure our liberty. We mourn the loss of every fallen American, and we owe it to them to build a future worthy of their sacrifice. 

Fellow citizens: The year ahead will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve. It can be tempting to think that America can put aside the burdens of freedom. Yet times of testing reveal the character of a nation. And throughout our history, Americans have always defied the pessimists and seen our faith in freedom redeemed. Now America is engaged in a new struggle that will set the course for a new century. We can and we will prevail. 

We go forward with trust that the Author of Liberty will guide us through these trying hours. Thank you, and good night._


----------



## Statistikhengst

"Good evening: Man and Fish can cohabitate together without misunderstimateding each other. Thank you, and now, watch this shot!"


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11222804 





eagle1462010 said:


> Your 4 times as worse probably shows your math skills...........2 times would be the better assessment.



Go back and try to read what I wrote. Here is what you need to focus upon:

_ "Here's the facts in numbers, since numbers don't lie and they cannot be twisted into lies.  <>.  Since the day that all US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been around *33,000 *Iraq civilians killed. Perhaps half that many were the result of Daesh terrorist scum attacks and bombings. Perhaps you do not understand numbers SassyIrishLass?  <>.   *However most body counting organizations count at least 120,000* *Iraqis were killed* *when US combat troops were present in Iraq from 2003 through 2011.  *<>  So it was about *four times worse* when US troops were killing and dying in Iraq than since they left when all US troops were pulled out on Bush's deadline date."
_

You are quite clueless aren't you? It is obvious that my comparison of numbers of civilians killed since Bush started his dumb war was about the results from US troop combat role presence versus no presence in a combat role.

You can't do your average method because the US troop presence was not a constant after 2011. Like I wrote:

"*120,000* *Iraqis were killed* *when US combat troops were present in Iraq from 2003 through 2011."  Versus  "Since the day that all US troops left Iraq in December 2011, there have been around 33,000 Iraq civilians killed. "
*
Before US troops were ordered into Iraq there were few civilian deaths due to civil war or sectarian strife. Certainly no Americans were on the ground killing any Iraqis.,

My point to Sassy was that she did not give a crap about civilian deaths when US troops were tuck in the quagmire there. 
_*
*_


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11222836 





eagle1462010 said:


> If the Dems would have Won in 2006...............Iraq would have been lost by the next election..........Instead Petraeus took control and limited the violence there.........even though the Civil War there was still ongoing.................   #3964



Are you declaring the surge worked when it only limited the violence to a lower level than the peak of violence from 2004 through 2005? It did not lower the violence to pre-war levels nor did it resolve the political and sectarian severe adversarial divide that also did not exist prior to March 20 2003 throughout the years when the two No Fly Zones were in effect. 

It is a very low standard that you've accepted in declaring the surge a success when you admit it left an ongoing civil war that did not exist prior to the massive and deadly US invasion that was launched to find WMD that Bush declared were being hidden from UN inspectors that Bush agreed to send in there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Why do some Obama haters use this argument?

eagl 11223763 





eagle1462010 said:


> ..I could post the reports and recomendations from the Generals, Pentagon, Centcom..............saying DON'T LEAVE IRAQ or this will happen..............



And other Obama haters use this argument?

 Vigi 9806599 





Vigilante said:


> Obama wanted to keep 10 000 troops in Iraq ABC s Raddatz claims PunditFact



The truth is that it does not matter what Obama wanted or what the Generals wanted and recommended. It only matters what the Iraqis involved in their very own sovereign nation wanted - and that was no troops staying in Iraq beyond 2011 if they needed to be granted immunity from Iraqi courts. 

Why does one who cannot be accused of being a "liberal" easily grasp the truth of the matter as to why Obama had to pull all US troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011?

RGS 9806605  





RetiredGySgt said:


> Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.



Eagle1 still argues that the generals recommended keeping troops in Iraq without the protections that RetiredGySgt explains that it was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.


----------



## eagle1462010

NotfooledbyW said:


> Why do some Obama haters use this argument?
> 
> eagl 11223763
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..I could post the reports and recomendations from the Generals, Pentagon, Centcom..............saying DON'T LEAVE IRAQ or this will happen..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And other Obama haters use this argument?
> 
> Vigi 9806599
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama wanted to keep 10 000 troops in Iraq ABC s Raddatz claims PunditFact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth is that it does not matter what Obama wanted or what the Generals wanted and recommended. It only matters what the Iraqis involved in their very own sovereign nation wanted - and that was no troops staying in Iraq beyond 2011 if they needed to be granted immunity from Iraqi courts.
> 
> Why does one who cannot be accused of being a "liberal" easily grasp the truth of the matter as to why Obama had to pull all US troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011?
> 
> RGS 9806605
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obama refused to keep troops in Iraq because Iraq insisted they be able to charge them with local crimes and Courts. That was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eagle1 still argues that the generals recommended keeping troops in Iraq without the protections that RetiredGySgt explains that it was Iraq's choice and it was a no go.
Click to expand...


And Of course, as I've said on many threads, you NEGOTIATE THESE TERMS, not a all or nothing deal.  Of course we will not allow them to charge our troops in local courts.

But on your side, like Obama, THEY SAID NOT LET'S GO..................BS the terms could have been negotiated down to acceptable terms..................Obama had no intentions of negotiating Jack Squat.  He wanted out Katie Bar the Door and everyone with half a brain cell know's that.


----------



## eagle1462010

No U.S. Troops Didn t Have to Leave Iraq National Review Online

But here’s an easy way for Democrats to avoid the debate entirely: *Claim that President Obama had no choice* about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and *blame Bush.*

*The three problematic claims*: [1] Any residual U.S. force we might have left in Iraq would have been minimal and in a non-combat role, somewhere on the order of 2–3,000 [troops]. . . . [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave. . . . [3] The status-of-forces agreement, the basic framework upon which American withdrawal was based, came from the administration of George W. Bush

These claims don’t jibe with what we know about how the negotiations with Iraq went. It’s the *White House itself that decided just 2–3,000 troops made sense, when the Defense Department and others were proposing more. Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him* — the problem was that the Obama administration wanted a small force so that it could say it had ended the war. Having a very small American force wasn’t worth the domestic political price Maliki would have to pay for supporting their presence. In other words,* it’s not correct that “the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave.”*

*The Obama administration, in fact, doesn’t even really deny it:* For Dexter Filkins’s New Yorker story, deputy national-security adviser Ben Rhodes didn’t dispute this issue, he just argued that a U.S. troop presence wouldn’t have been a panacea.

And Hayes’s third point, that the* Bush* administration signed the status-of-forces agreement that included U.S. troops’ leaving at the end of 2011, is utterly meaningless: *The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated *


----------



## Dot Com

The Cotton 47 make Iranians look like life-long friends in comparison. Repubs


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11241194 





eagle1462010 said:


> The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated  #3721



This is an idiot's argument. There is no 'supposed to be' when it comes to negotiating a withdrawal agreement in 2008 with the Iraqis who wanted US troops gone, otherwise there would have been no need for hard negotiations in the first place. Relying on 'supposed to be renegotiated' three years out is about as stupid as one can get because it assumes that the Iraqis would be willing to negotiate after being told they were ready to provide security for their "SOVEREIGN" nation in 2008. And through 2011 it appeared on the surface that Iraq was able to provide for their own security. Why would they agree to grant US troops immunity when they did not believe they needed US troops anyway?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11241194 





eagle1462010 said:


> *Claim that President Obama had no choice* about whether to keep troops in Iraq or not, and *blame Bush.* #3721



There is no 'blaming Bush' .... You are making that part up.  Signing the deal in 2008 was about the only thing Bush did right with regard to Iraq for five years. Obama had no choice because the Iraqis would not grant immunity. That is just a fact. No need to blame Bush when expressing a fact that cannot be denied by Bush lovers desperate to somehow make sense out of Bush's dumb and needless and absurd invasion of Iraq to find WMD that were not there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11241194 





eagle1462010 said:


> [2] We could not have stayed unless the Iraqi government let us stay — Iraq is a sovereign nation and the al-Maliki government wanted American troops to leave #3721



There's another false argument from you eagle1. The Maliki government would let American troops stay,. they just would not grant them immunity.

And according to Obama hater Vigilante, he cited a report that Obama wanted to keep 10,000 Troops in Iraq.  So which is it eagle1? Do Obama haters accuse Obama of wanting to keep 10,000 troops or do Obama haters accuse Obama of wanting to keep no troops?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11241194 





eagle1462010 said:


> *Maliki was willing to accept a deal with U.S. forces if it was worth it to him  * #3721



Maliki could have been willing to jump over the moon if it could keep US troops in Iraq...However  (A) It  would not pass in Iraq's legislature and an immunity deal could not be set in lraqi law without that.   (B) It was Maliki who in December 2007 wrote a letter to the UN demanding that US troops had to be put on a timeline by 2008 to withdraw which forced Bush into "DESPERATE" negotiations  in 2008 where Bush was fortunately forced to surrender to a three year deal and no permanent US bases were to be accepted in Iraq.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NF 11223711 





NotfooledbyW said:


> Eagl 11217860
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <> Your position is BUT BUSH............*When Bush left office Iraq was intact*..............wasn't it. #3678
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who diverted it to "But Bush" if we do not count Slyhunter's 'whine' .
Click to expand...



You said "BUT" when Bush left office Iraq was intact.  But it most certainly was not. You yourself have admitted that the civil war in Iraq was still going on when Bush left office. So straightening you out on the fact that Iraq was not 'intact' as far as violence being sufficiently contained by January 2009 is not a "BUT BUSH" argument. It is an argument against your entirely false and unsupportable claim that when Bush left office Iraq was intact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11241194 ↑ 


> The agreement was supposed to be renegotiated #3721



Was it written into the agreement?  Also was it written that whatever level of troops negotiated to remain after 2011 were to be granted the same immunity that was part of the 2008 agreement?   If not you have no case.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagle1462010 said:


> 3. This situation in Iraq is because we withdrew from the region under Obama.



We did not withdraw from the region?  Kuwait is not that far from Iraq. The toughest sanctions on Iran ever came in 2010 because of pressure from Obama on the EU.  Where did we withdraw when the host government wanted us to stay? I know of no place.



> *European Union Imposes New Economic Sanctions Against Iran (July 27, 2010)*
> Responding to pressure from the Obama Administration, the 27 states of the European Union significantly broadened economic sanctions against Iran.  The new sanctions go beyond those imposed by the UN Security Council in June.  The new measures target petroleum, banking, shipping, insurance and transportation.  The EU's decision indicates that the member states are ready to increase the pressure on Tehran, even at the expense of harming the population and bringing the conflict closer to war._(Washington Post)   _


UN Sanctions Against Iran


----------



## NotfooledbyW

eagl 11223763 





			
				eagle1462010 said:
			
		

> Obama not listening to the Generals are why we are here today...........



Can you cite any legal, moral
situational  or practical means whereby a US President has the responsibility for the outcome of a vote or pending vote in a foreign government's legislative body?


----------

