Ah, what a difference a year makes

[Wildman]

Talk about being a traitor... telling the world our troops are terrorists!

the demoncrat party is filled with traitors, it is very hard to decide which one tops the list, there are at least 27 who are tied for first place.

 

[Wildman]

i think its shameful

but it was NOT shameful when T.Kennedy done something far worse ??


you people are the one who are most shameful !!

 

[Porker]

The ones who wrote that letter, who else? If we had a republican president who was even now beating the war drum and making the case for a bombing campaign and invasion of Iran you would eat it up like yummy candy. You would trust them like you did when GWB was making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

Let's review. It seems you keep repeating your lies.

 

[healthmyths]

when GWB was making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

you mean the invasion of iraq, where nearly every lying fucking scummycrat agreed Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" and must be contained and also were in favor of a "regime change" ??

is that the "case" you are referring to ???

you fucking lying demoliberscum sure have poor memories.

I agree with every word you used except one. "Invasion". Use "Liberation" instead because these traitors took the original signed by Democrats and
Clinton act known as the "1998 Liberation of Iraq" Act and when they were out of power changed to the negative "Invasion" word.
More people began using "Invasion" even supporters and perception is the name of the game. By changing to "invasion" the bad guys i.e. terrorists,
etc. became the "good guys" and our troops "invaders"...instead of "liberators".
So I've continued to try to change everyone's calling it an invasion because after all it was because Saddam failed to keep the 1991 CEASE FIRE
that the Liberation of Iraq Act which called for Saddam's overthrow and later our liberating Iraqis from Saddam began.
But as I said... I agree with everything you wrote!!!

 

[Wildman]

Nixon told VietNam not to negotiate with LBJ?

because LB "i'll have those NGGRs voting demoncrat for the next 200 years" J.., that LBJ ??

 

[Wildman]

I agree with everything you wrote!!!

and a huge THANK YOU ! to you

 

[MisterBeale]

When the Council on Foreign Relations and the Global Government decides it is going to do something, it is a done deal.

All the whining in the world makes no difference. The globalists will always have their way. Once the Globalists get together and issue their marching orders, pols. from both sides of the aisle, Republicans, and Democrats, will make this happen. If it is on the agenda of the Council on Foreign Affairs, it is going to happen.

This is an article from the CFR's foreign policy magazine, "Foreign Policy."


Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
Why Iran Should Get the Bomb Foreign Affairs
Columbia University’s Kenneth Waltz
"The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its current course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon. U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that outcome unacceptable, arguing that a nuclear Iran is a uniquely terrifying prospect, even an existential threat. Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country has begun to develop a nuclear weapon of its own. Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.


Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge."


And. . . .

"UNFOUNDED FEARS

One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders. Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume otherwise.

Yet that is precisely what many U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts have done. Portraying Iran as irrational has allowed them to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply to the Islamic Republic. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the Iranian regime holds dear."

 

[MisterBeale]

This goes for Hillary Clinton, or Jeb Bush. It makes no difference WHO is in charge.

 

[healthmyths]

When the Council on Foreign Relations and the Global Government decides it is going to do something, it is a done deal.

All the whining in the world makes no difference. The globalists will always have their way. Once the Globalists get together and issue their marching orders, pols. from both sides of the aisle, Republicans, and Democrats, will make this happen. If it is on the agenda of the Council on Foreign Affairs, it is going to happen.

This is an article from the CFR's foreign policy magazine, "Foreign Policy."


Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
Why Iran Should Get the Bomb Foreign Affairs
Columbia University’s Kenneth Waltz
"The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its current course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon. U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that outcome unacceptable, arguing that a nuclear Iran is a uniquely terrifying prospect, even an existential threat. Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country has begun to develop a nuclear weapon of its own. Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.


Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge."


And. . . .

"UNFOUNDED FEARS

One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders. Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume otherwise.

Yet that is precisely what many U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts have done. Portraying Iran as irrational has allowed them to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply to the Islamic Republic. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the Iranian regime holds dear."

"Iran as irrational"???
Examples of Iran irrationality...
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called over the weekend for the destruction of Israel, stating that the “barbaric” Jewish state
“has no cure but to be annihilated.
Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel | The Times of Israel Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel The Times of Israel


Here are the rest of his 9 points for destroying Israel..

Now please explain how the "rational" leaders of the world can deal with this "irrational" statements By the LEADER of Iran...

 

[MisterBeale]

When the Council on Foreign Relations and the Global Government decides it is going to do something, it is a done deal.

All the whining in the world makes no difference. The globalists will always have their way. Once the Globalists get together and issue their marching orders, pols. from both sides of the aisle, Republicans, and Democrats, will make this happen. If it is on the agenda of the Council on Foreign Affairs, it is going to happen.

This is an article from the CFR's foreign policy magazine, "Foreign Policy."


Why Iran Should Get the Bomb
Why Iran Should Get the Bomb Foreign Affairs
Columbia University’s Kenneth Waltz
"The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its current course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon. U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that outcome unacceptable, arguing that a nuclear Iran is a uniquely terrifying prospect, even an existential threat. Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country has begun to develop a nuclear weapon of its own. Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.


Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge."


And. . . .

"UNFOUNDED FEARS

One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders. Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume otherwise.

Yet that is precisely what many U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts have done. Portraying Iran as irrational has allowed them to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply to the Islamic Republic. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the Iranian regime holds dear."

"Iran as irrational"???
Examples of Iran irrationality...
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei called over the weekend for the destruction of Israel, stating that the “barbaric” Jewish state
“has no cure but to be annihilated.
Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel | The Times of Israel Iran supreme leader touts 9-point plan to destroy Israel The Times of Israel


Here are the rest of his 9 points for destroying Israel..

View attachment 37749

Now please explain how the "rational" leaders of the world can deal with this "irrational" statements By the LEADER of Iran...

You know what? Frankly I don't give a shit. I don't care about the Zionists that own half of our media and politicians or the globalists that own the other half of the media and politicians.

Frankly, what is going on over there is none of our GD business.

Perhaps it's all a ploy to make Albert Pike's game plan come true, and the Jesuits and Knights of Malta are manipulating them all. I don't trust any of them.

If a bomb goes off, of course the media will say, "OH, SEE, we told you Iran was going to use one, or give one to the terrorists." But how will we really know that the explosion hadn't been a false flag, one that had been one of Mossad's or one of ours? Mossad is responsible for creating false flag terror all the time to further Israel political goals. Of course we will never know. You will just be one of those fools that will accept w/o question the MSM narrative.

I DON'T TRUST ANY OF THEM.


The point of my post was not to say "I support Iran having a bomb," it was to say, it is going to happen. It is beyond our control. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a global oligarchic dictatorship.

You can debate the wisdom of it all you like, it is going to happen.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yeah, but what the Republican Senators did was still pretty retarded.

Yabut!
Its the only argument you've got.
Obama sucks and his policies are ruinous.
YABUT Bush was also bad.

 

[The Rabbi]

Congress will ultimately have a say when a deal is reached

Trying to sabotage any chance of a deal is irresponsible by Republicans

The administration already announced they wouldnt submit it.
So go suck on it, nutsucker.