How can a president who destroys a country win the Nobel Peace prize ?

[OldLady]

Obama did an unprecedented thing when he managed to convince belligerent Iran to put the brakes on its nuclear arms development. I am very disappointed that Trump has thrown that work in the trash.

Right, none of this is Iran's fault am I right. Its not Iran's fault they fund terrorism all over the middle east and have killed countless civilians and children.

Where in the sam hill did I say any of THAT? This is not about liking or disliking Iran. I was speaking of Obama's accomplishment.

The accomplishment that he was so proud of that he would not allow congress to touch before he signed off on it? The one that somehow was supposed to be followed by the U.S. even though it did not follow our law? Surely you don't mean that one.

Really? Where's the Supreme Court ruling saying so?

Let me get this right since I don't want to be accused of misunderstanding some one who may be senile.
You support a president not having to be watched over by congress. Unless the Supreme Court says no they should be allowed to by pass congress.
The U.S. should continue a treaty or pact or what ever you want to call it that Iran never actually signed.
You consider it an achievement that should be applauded that after the end of its time will only cause Iran to have a waiting period of less then a year before they have a working nuclear weapon. IF they follow the agreement.!!
There is only one site that is monitored any other would need at least 20 days notice if it is even allowed.
So it is known that Iran has been trading with North Korea what do you think North Korea had to sell that Iran could possibly want?

So all in all you like the idea that a president should be allowed to write and sign treaties without congressional oversight even if the party that is affected by the treaty does not sign.
Sounds an awful lot like a dictator setup to me.

I realize you disagree with the decision. Now there is no waiting time at all, though, is there? And no other countries involved in the agreement agree with us in dismantling it. Keep it, they say, and add to it, if we can. Now Iran is a loose cannon again and we will have NO ability to monitor what in hell they're up to.
Iran was complying the agreement, imperfect as it may have been. Now what have we got? Iran taking pot shots at traffic through the Straits of Hormuz and calling Trump a retard. Telling the world they'll start manufacturing whatsit nuclear stuff immediately.
Great.
All your self righteous posturing is really helpful. Thanks a bunch.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Right, none of this is Iran's fault am I right. Its not Iran's fault they fund terrorism all over the middle east and have killed countless civilians and children.

Where in the sam hill did I say any of THAT? This is not about liking or disliking Iran. I was speaking of Obama's accomplishment.

The accomplishment that he was so proud of that he would not allow congress to touch before he signed off on it? The one that somehow was supposed to be followed by the U.S. even though it did not follow our law? Surely you don't mean that one.

Really? Where's the Supreme Court ruling saying so?

Let me get this right since I don't want to be accused of misunderstanding some one who may be senile.
You support a president not having to be watched over by congress. Unless the Supreme Court says no they should be allowed to by pass congress.
The U.S. should continue a treaty or pact or what ever you want to call it that Iran never actually signed.
You consider it an achievement that should be applauded that after the end of its time will only cause Iran to have a waiting period of less then a year before they have a working nuclear weapon. IF they follow the agreement.!!
There is only one site that is monitored any other would need at least 20 days notice if it is even allowed.
So it is known that Iran has been trading with North Korea what do you think North Korea had to sell that Iran could possibly want?

So all in all you like the idea that a president should be allowed to write and sign treaties without congressional oversight even if the party that is affected by the treaty does not sign.
Sounds an awful lot like a dictator setup to me.

I realize you disagree with the decision. Now there is no waiting time at all, though, is there? And no other countries involved in the agreement agree with us in dismantling it. Keep it, they say, and add to it, if we can. Now Iran is a loose cannon again and we will have NO ability to monitor what in hell they're up to.
Iran was complying the agreement, imperfect as it may have been. Now what have we got? Iran taking pot shots at traffic through the Straits of Hormuz and calling Trump a retard. Telling the world they'll start manufacturing whatsit nuclear stuff immediately.
Great.
All your self righteous posturing is really helpful. Thanks a bunch.

Says the proven liar.

 

[OldLady]

Yes, to defeat ISIS.

Yes, they are signatories to the deal. October 2015.

I know that the military inspection carve out was an issue. I doubt if we would allow a hostile foreign country to be nosing around our most guarded military bases, either, though. There is only one site large enough to possibly work on nuclear weapons, and if you think that has been "ignored," you're nuts. We've been watching it like a hawk and don't you doubt it.

It was never signed by Iran, and "watching" is not inspecting.

"State Department says Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal and it's not 'legally binding' as it tells Congress to butt out of Obama's 'political commitments'"

State Department: Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal and it's not binding | Daily Mail Online

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

The article was talking about summer of 2015. The deal was signed in October.

November 2015....

"
The Obama administration admits to Congress that its nuclear pact with Iran has not been signed by the Iranian regime and has no legal force. Obama's "tough diplomacy" is puff diplomacy.

The White House's latest updated "Strategy for American Innovation" left one innovation out: diplomatic pacts with other countries that don't have to be signed.

Maybe President Obama will say that it saves the taxpayers money, since it eliminates signing ceremonies in lavish locales.

Going back to when, as a candidate, he expressed a willingness to talk directly with Iran, then through months of negotiations on its nuclear program, Obama never said that at the end of it all the Iranians might never bother to sign the deal that he promises will prevent the terror state from becoming nuclear-armed."


Iran Nuclear Deal Isn't A Bad Deal After All; It's No Deal | Investor's Business Daily

I'm just going by every single article I've seen other than yours, all saying that Iran is a signatory (that means they've signed, I believe).

Nope you're a liar, nothing more. I asked you to prove what you said and you're running away. You've been proven a liar.

lie
verb (2)
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Never. I would not make misleading statements in order to deceive you or anyone else.

Of course, what matters here is not whether they signed it or spit in their palm and shook on it. What mattered is whether they were complying with the agreement, which they were according to an uninvolved international team.

Obama made the agreement legally; that you didn't like it is tough toenails and now that Trump has broken it, it's tough toenails for me. Trump was also within his rights.

 

[Ambivalent1]

It was never signed by Iran, and "watching" is not inspecting.

"State Department says Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal and it's not 'legally binding' as it tells Congress to butt out of Obama's 'political commitments'"

State Department: Iran NEVER SIGNED nuclear deal and it's not binding | Daily Mail Online

State Department: Iran Deal Not 'Legally Binding' and Iran Didn't Sign It | [site:name] | National Review

The article was talking about summer of 2015. The deal was signed in October.

November 2015....

"
The Obama administration admits to Congress that its nuclear pact with Iran has not been signed by the Iranian regime and has no legal force. Obama's "tough diplomacy" is puff diplomacy.

The White House's latest updated "Strategy for American Innovation" left one innovation out: diplomatic pacts with other countries that don't have to be signed.

Maybe President Obama will say that it saves the taxpayers money, since it eliminates signing ceremonies in lavish locales.

Going back to when, as a candidate, he expressed a willingness to talk directly with Iran, then through months of negotiations on its nuclear program, Obama never said that at the end of it all the Iranians might never bother to sign the deal that he promises will prevent the terror state from becoming nuclear-armed."


Iran Nuclear Deal Isn't A Bad Deal After All; It's No Deal | Investor's Business Daily

I'm just going by every single article I've seen other than yours, all saying that Iran is a signatory (that means they've signed, I believe).

Nope you're a liar, nothing more. I asked you to prove what you said and you're running away. You've been proven a liar.

lie
verb (2)
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Never. I would not make misleading statements in order to deceive you or anyone else.

Of course, what matters here is not whether they signed it or spit in their palm and shook on it. What mattered is whether they were complying with the agreement, which they were according to an uninvolved international team.

Obama made the agreement legally; that you didn't like it is tough toenails and now that Trump has broken it, it's tough toenails for me. Trump was also within his rights.

Just ONE article liar.
Just ONE?

There isn't one and you know it. Now you try to deflect from your lie.

 

[BluesLegend]

Obama did an unprecedented thing when he managed to convince belligerent Iran to put the brakes on its nuclear arms development. I am very disappointed that Trump has thrown that work in the trash.

Right, none of this is Iran's fault am I right. Its not Iran's fault they fund terrorism all over the middle east and have killed countless civilians and children.

So have the Saudi's but Trump is selling them nuclear technology. And here's the difference - the Saudis really did fund 9/11, and more than half of the terrorists were carrying Saudi passports. NONE of the 9/11 attackers, and none of the Al Qaeda attacks were funded by Iran.

Furthermore, when Trump tore up the Iran Accord, Iran was fully in compliance with all of the terms and provisions, as per the mandated inspections. Trump broke the treaty and imposed sanctions on Iran. What was Iran supposed to do? This isn't North Korea or Yemen. The Iranians are militarily, the strongest nation in the Middle East, with the exception of Isreal which has nukes, even though they've never publically admitted it.

Trump broke American's word, and the Irans will not deal with him. He is dishonourable and he lies. The Iranians distrust of American is not without good reason. (See Shah of Iran). Every time Iran trusts the USA, the USA screws them over. They trusted Obama, and Trump has screwed them over.

I realize that I am offering sanity and reason to a Trumpist, but I live in the real world, not the one where everything Trump does is wonderful, regardless of the outcome.

I'm calling BS on you libs for your selective faux rage.

 

[BluesLegend]

So you think the Iran nuclear deal was a treaty? What was the vote in the Senate, dumbass?

I'll reply for her...but but but why do you always have to throw facts in our face

 

[BuckToothMoron]

We always give Bush and his daddy credit for obliterating Iraq, so what about Obama and his covert operations in Syria (for one example) ?



The pro-war propaganda of regime change is the exact same mentality that got us into the disastrous war on Iraq, Libya and now Syria, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East, the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and costing American taxpayers well over $6 trillion dollars. ( and that's a conservative figure).

Too many times the U.S. has rushed into regime change war without an intelligent analysis of the potential effects.

Syria

Let’s be clear- BO did not win the Nobel Peace Prize for anything he accomplished. It was awarded to him for his thoughts, ideas and vision. You can agree or disagree with him winning the prize, but there is no debate on what he won it for. He was given the prize only 8 months into his presidency and he had accomplished nothing substantial, but had talked a whole bunch. You see key words like “efforts” and “vision” and “hope” describing the justification for the award. There are no actual accomplishments cited.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

Oslo, October 9, 2009

 

[Crepitus]

How can a president who destroys a country win the Nobel Peace prize ?

Don't worry, it's highly unlikely tRump will win a Nobel.

Well if tRump (very mature of you I might add) continues to bring PEACE to the KOREAN PENINSULA he SHOULD! What did Obama do but drone strikes and escalate and start wars?

The Nobel Peace prize is no longer legitimate, especially since Obama won it anyway.

Continues to bring peace?

Let me know when he starts, lol.

 

[OldLady]

The article was talking about summer of 2015. The deal was signed in October.

November 2015....

"
The Obama administration admits to Congress that its nuclear pact with Iran has not been signed by the Iranian regime and has no legal force. Obama's "tough diplomacy" is puff diplomacy.

The White House's latest updated "Strategy for American Innovation" left one innovation out: diplomatic pacts with other countries that don't have to be signed.

Maybe President Obama will say that it saves the taxpayers money, since it eliminates signing ceremonies in lavish locales.

Going back to when, as a candidate, he expressed a willingness to talk directly with Iran, then through months of negotiations on its nuclear program, Obama never said that at the end of it all the Iranians might never bother to sign the deal that he promises will prevent the terror state from becoming nuclear-armed."


Iran Nuclear Deal Isn't A Bad Deal After All; It's No Deal | Investor's Business Daily

I'm just going by every single article I've seen other than yours, all saying that Iran is a signatory (that means they've signed, I believe).

Nope you're a liar, nothing more. I asked you to prove what you said and you're running away. You've been proven a liar.

lie
verb (2)
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Never. I would not make misleading statements in order to deceive you or anyone else.

Of course, what matters here is not whether they signed it or spit in their palm and shook on it. What mattered is whether they were complying with the agreement, which they were according to an uninvolved international team.

Obama made the agreement legally; that you didn't like it is tough toenails and now that Trump has broken it, it's tough toenails for me. Trump was also within his rights.

Just ONE article liar.
Just ONE?

There isn't one and you know it. Now you try to deflect from your lie.

Based on the March/April 2015 negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework, completed on 2 April 2015, Iran agreed tentatively to accept significant restrictions on its nuclear program, all of which would last for at least a decade and some longer, and to submit to an increased intensity of international inspections under a framework deal. These details were to be negotiated by the end of June 2015. On June 30 the negotiations on a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action were extended under the Joint Plan of Action until 7 July 2015.[6] The agreement was signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015.
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - Wikipedia

 

[Ambivalent1]

November 2015....

"
The Obama administration admits to Congress that its nuclear pact with Iran has not been signed by the Iranian regime and has no legal force. Obama's "tough diplomacy" is puff diplomacy.

The White House's latest updated "Strategy for American Innovation" left one innovation out: diplomatic pacts with other countries that don't have to be signed.

Maybe President Obama will say that it saves the taxpayers money, since it eliminates signing ceremonies in lavish locales.

Going back to when, as a candidate, he expressed a willingness to talk directly with Iran, then through months of negotiations on its nuclear program, Obama never said that at the end of it all the Iranians might never bother to sign the deal that he promises will prevent the terror state from becoming nuclear-armed."


Iran Nuclear Deal Isn't A Bad Deal After All; It's No Deal | Investor's Business Daily

I'm just going by every single article I've seen other than yours, all saying that Iran is a signatory (that means they've signed, I believe).

Nope you're a liar, nothing more. I asked you to prove what you said and you're running away. You've been proven a liar.

lie
verb (2)
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Never. I would not make misleading statements in order to deceive you or anyone else.

Of course, what matters here is not whether they signed it or spit in their palm and shook on it. What mattered is whether they were complying with the agreement, which they were according to an uninvolved international team.

Obama made the agreement legally; that you didn't like it is tough toenails and now that Trump has broken it, it's tough toenails for me. Trump was also within his rights.

Just ONE article liar.
Just ONE?

There isn't one and you know it. Now you try to deflect from your lie.

Based on the March/April 2015 negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework, completed on 2 April 2015, Iran agreed tentatively to accept significant restrictions on its nuclear program, all of which would last for at least a decade and some longer, and to submit to an increased intensity of international inspections under a framework deal. These details were to be negotiated by the end of June 2015. On June 30 the negotiations on a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action were extended under the Joint Plan of Action until 7 July 2015.[6] The agreement was signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015.
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - Wikipedia

LMAO, sure by all of the other Nations, NOT Iran. YOU said it was signed in Oct, I posted an article from Nov telling you that Iran NEVER signed it. Give it up grandma, you lied.

 

[Ambivalent1]

November 2015....

"
The Obama administration admits to Congress that its nuclear pact with Iran has not been signed by the Iranian regime and has no legal force. Obama's "tough diplomacy" is puff diplomacy.

The White House's latest updated "Strategy for American Innovation" left one innovation out: diplomatic pacts with other countries that don't have to be signed.

Maybe President Obama will say that it saves the taxpayers money, since it eliminates signing ceremonies in lavish locales.

Going back to when, as a candidate, he expressed a willingness to talk directly with Iran, then through months of negotiations on its nuclear program, Obama never said that at the end of it all the Iranians might never bother to sign the deal that he promises will prevent the terror state from becoming nuclear-armed."


Iran Nuclear Deal Isn't A Bad Deal After All; It's No Deal | Investor's Business Daily

I'm just going by every single article I've seen other than yours, all saying that Iran is a signatory (that means they've signed, I believe).

Nope you're a liar, nothing more. I asked you to prove what you said and you're running away. You've been proven a liar.

lie
verb (2)
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Never. I would not make misleading statements in order to deceive you or anyone else.

Of course, what matters here is not whether they signed it or spit in their palm and shook on it. What mattered is whether they were complying with the agreement, which they were according to an uninvolved international team.

Obama made the agreement legally; that you didn't like it is tough toenails and now that Trump has broken it, it's tough toenails for me. Trump was also within his rights.

Just ONE article liar.
Just ONE?

There isn't one and you know it. Now you try to deflect from your lie.

Based on the March/April 2015 negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework, completed on 2 April 2015, Iran agreed tentatively to accept significant restrictions on its nuclear program, all of which would last for at least a decade and some longer, and to submit to an increased intensity of international inspections under a framework deal. These details were to be negotiated by the end of June 2015. On June 30 the negotiations on a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action were extended under the Joint Plan of Action until 7 July 2015.[6] The agreement was signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015.
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - Wikipedia

You do realize that one of my sources was Barry's State Dept.....right?

 

[WEATHER53]

I'm just going by every single article I've seen other than yours, all saying that Iran is a signatory (that means they've signed, I believe).

Nope you're a liar, nothing more. I asked you to prove what you said and you're running away. You've been proven a liar.

lie
verb (2)
1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Never. I would not make misleading statements in order to deceive you or anyone else.

Of course, what matters here is not whether they signed it or spit in their palm and shook on it. What mattered is whether they were complying with the agreement, which they were according to an uninvolved international team.

Obama made the agreement legally; that you didn't like it is tough toenails and now that Trump has broken it, it's tough toenails for me. Trump was also within his rights.

Just ONE article liar.
Just ONE?

There isn't one and you know it. Now you try to deflect from your lie.

Based on the March/April 2015 negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework, completed on 2 April 2015, Iran agreed tentatively to accept significant restrictions on its nuclear program, all of which would last for at least a decade and some longer, and to submit to an increased intensity of international inspections under a framework deal. These details were to be negotiated by the end of June 2015. On June 30 the negotiations on a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action were extended under the Joint Plan of Action until 7 July 2015.[6] The agreement was signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015.
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action - Wikipedia

You do realize that one of my sources was Barry's State Dept.....right?

Ah...ah...ah...no...no...that’s racist.

 

[Pogo]

How can a president who destroys a country win the Nobel Peace prize ?

Don't worry, it's highly unlikely tRump will win a Nobel.

Well if tRump (very mature of you I might add) continues to bring PEACE to the KOREAN PENINSULA he SHOULD! What did Obama do but drone strikes and escalate and start wars?

The Nobel Peace prize is no longer legitimate, especially since Obama won it anyway.

Continues to bring peace?

Let me know when he starts, lol.

Yeah, you know.

"Peace the crap out of 'em!"
"Peace the hell!"
"There used to be peaceaquences! They'd be carried out on a hammock, sipping a nice mint julep!"

 

[Marion Morrison]

Obama did an unprecedented thing when he managed to convince belligerent Iran to put the brakes on its nuclear arms development. I am very disappointed that Trump has thrown that work in the trash.

I'm sorry, GF, that's derp AF.

Yes. It hurts to run my hand on my sunburned forehead, but you
know jack shit about that in Maine.

Who's G.F.?

Girl Friend.
Amiwrong?

 

[Wyatt earp]

We always give Bush and his daddy credit for obliterating Iraq, so what about Obama and his covert operations in Syria (for one example) ?



The pro-war propaganda of regime change is the exact same mentality that got us into the disastrous war on Iraq, Libya and now Syria, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East, the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and costing American taxpayers well over $6 trillion dollars. ( and that's a conservative figure).

Too many times the U.S. has rushed into regime change war without an intelligent analysis of the potential effects.

Syria

He was nominated for one before he almost sat in the oval office.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Obama did an unprecedented thing when he managed to convince belligerent Iran to put the brakes on its nuclear arms development. I am very disappointed that Trump has thrown that work in the trash.

And now he is asking the same people to get Iran to agree to another nuclear plan he wants to implement.

So you still convinced this time it would work (and ignore when it didn't work the last time)

What is it with you guys acting like 1984.

.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

We always give Bush and his daddy credit for obliterating Iraq, so what about Obama and his covert operations in Syria (for one example) ?



The pro-war propaganda of regime change is the exact same mentality that got us into the disastrous war on Iraq, Libya and now Syria, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East, the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and costing American taxpayers well over $6 trillion dollars. ( and that's a conservative figure).

Too many times the U.S. has rushed into regime change war without an intelligent analysis of the potential effects.

Syria

Gr.
Reagan ended the cold war and he didn't get a Nobel prize

 

[Maxdeath]

Right, none of this is Iran's fault am I right. Its not Iran's fault they fund terrorism all over the middle east and have killed countless civilians and children.

Where in the sam hill did I say any of THAT? This is not about liking or disliking Iran. I was speaking of Obama's accomplishment.

The accomplishment that he was so proud of that he would not allow congress to touch before he signed off on it? The one that somehow was supposed to be followed by the U.S. even though it did not follow our law? Surely you don't mean that one.

Really? Where's the Supreme Court ruling saying so?

Let me get this right since I don't want to be accused of misunderstanding some one who may be senile.
You support a president not having to be watched over by congress. Unless the Supreme Court says no they should be allowed to by pass congress.
The U.S. should continue a treaty or pact or what ever you want to call it that Iran never actually signed.
You consider it an achievement that should be applauded that after the end of its time will only cause Iran to have a waiting period of less then a year before they have a working nuclear weapon. IF they follow the agreement.!!
There is only one site that is monitored any other would need at least 20 days notice if it is even allowed.
So it is known that Iran has been trading with North Korea what do you think North Korea had to sell that Iran could possibly want?

So all in all you like the idea that a president should be allowed to write and sign treaties without congressional oversight even if the party that is affected by the treaty does not sign.
Sounds an awful lot like a dictator setup to me.

I realize you disagree with the decision. Now there is no waiting time at all, though, is there? And no other countries involved in the agreement agree with us in dismantling it. Keep it, they say, and add to it, if we can. Now Iran is a loose cannon again and we will have NO ability to monitor what in hell they're up to.
Iran was complying the agreement, imperfect as it may have been. Now what have we got? Iran taking pot shots at traffic through the Straits of Hormuz and calling Trump a retard. Telling the world they'll start manufacturing whatsit nuclear stuff immediately.
Great.
All your self righteous posturing is really helpful. Thanks a bunch.

So so you will be completely alright if Trump says that he has a nuclear agreement with North Korea? Even if he does not allow anyone to see it? Even if North Korea does not sign it?
Don't bother answering I already know the answer would be hell no.

Iran had at one time over 200 centrifuges. They were supposed to reduce that number below half and had not come close to stockpiling a given amount of enriched uranium in over four years of operating all those centrifuges. Under the agreement they were to have reduced the stockpile by more then half yet somehow they will have broken the amount of enriched uranium that they have stockpiled in less then a year. If they did follow the agreement how have they done that in half the time with supposibly under half the centrifuges?

You still did not give any answer what North Korea was trading with Iran.
We had an agreement with Iraq where they actually walked in and physically inspected areas. That has ever been done with Iran. We know they have financed terrorist organizations and operations around the world and yet somehow we were expected to take their word that they were following the agreement. Seems a little strange that no one trusted one country but somehow is willing to take the word of another?

I somehow doubt that Iran will continue to take many pot shots at traffic in the straits. It won't take too much before some country becomes upset at having their ships hurt.

 

[the other mike]

Gr.
Reagan ended the cold war and he didn't get a Nobel prize

He thought he won it in 1988.
They told him the prize was two weeks at Disney World and
a lifetime supply of jellybeans.
( I should have been a writer for Johnny Carson)
Oh and why'd you call me GR ? You don't know me from somewhere else I can't say do you ?

 

[the other mike]

John McCain is in hell counting his Raytheon, Lockheed lobbyist's millions.