I'm curious: are repubs dumb enough to think Iran would roll over and do whatever the West wants?

[cnm]

Yeah and asswipe Obama couldn't secure the release of four American hostages held for absolutely no reason, in exchange for $150 billion and lifting of sanction. Talk about total incompetence!

When no argument is left go to total irrelevance...

 

[ninja007]

a lib talking about foreign policy; now thats funny.

Oh yeah.......you're one that cheers Sarah Palin's type of foreign policy....the extent being..... she can see Russia from her porch.....

Sarah Palin? um no.

 

[Mertex]

So much for Mertex' bullshit polls:

Obama's Iran deal rhetoric troubles American Jews - CNNPolitics.com

Aaron Bandler - Poll: Plurality of American Jews Oppose Iran Deal

Liar.........your link is dated August 10.....this one is dated August 26....and from a Conservative source....so I dare you to say they are lying, idiot. You're drunk on the Faux News KoolAid. So much for your Faux News conservative bullshit.

By JON BASIL UTLEY • August 26, 2015

The Israel Lobby does not represent most Jews. Sound surprising? You’d never know it from most TV talk shows or Republicans denouncing the Iran agreement as a terminal threat to Israel, and least of all from “The Lobby” itself. Its intimidating power depends upon the myth that it represents all American Jews, when it does not even represent a majority. It should really be called the “Likud Lobby,” representing Netanyahu, neoconservatives, militant settlers on the West Bank, evangelicals (mainly old ones) impatient for Armageddon, and the military-industrial complex.
By a 20-point margin in various polls, American Jews support the Iran agreement.
American Jews Reject the Israel Lobby—and Support the Iran Deal

 

[Tehon]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

The answer is yes we can make Iran roll over and do anything we want them too. They don't match the power of the United States. Israel has enough nukes themselves to turn the middle east into a parking lot if they wanted too.

The answer is no, we don't exist on this planet in a bubble. Despite our military capabilities there are many interconnected geopolitical calculations that must be weighed in such a decision as to attack another country unilaterally. The consensus of world opinion is that it is not lawful to wage war on another country without first being attacked. Bush didn't just attack Iraq, first he put together the coalition of the coerced and then he lobbied (lied) to the UN as to why we should do it. Probably going to need to bring a better case to the UN next time we try it.

 

[cnm]

It was still in breach of the UN Charter and declared illegal by the Secretary General of the UN. Just because there was a coalition didn't make it legal. I imagine the only effect of the coalition was to make the invasion a conspiracy under US law.

 

[bedowin62]

i'm trying to wrap my head around a thread title so stupid....................

isnt obama's "deal" with Iran exactly al example, or so he says. of him getting Iran to do what we want them to do?

 

[cnm]

Opponents of the Iran nuclear deal in Congress admit they can no longer kill the accord. Their focus now is making sure there will be a vote on the agreement at all, and salvaging some political benefit from their well-funded bid to stop it.

Congressional Fight on Iran Deal Is All But Over - Bloomberg View

 

[cnm]

i'm trying to wrap my head around a thread title so stupid....................

isnt obama's "deal" with Iran exactly al example, or so he says. of him getting Iran to do what we want them to do?

I'm surprised you're having trouble, I'd have thought your head flat enough.

No, the deal doesn't have Iran rolling over and doing whatever the west wants, it has Iran doing the least it can get away with.

Duh...

 

[bedowin62]

i'm trying to wrap my head around a thread title so stupid....................

isnt obama's "deal" with Iran exactly al example, or so he says. of him getting Iran to do what we want them to do?

I'm surprised you're having trouble, I'd have thought your head flat enough.

No, the deal doesn't have Iran rolling over and doing whatever the west wants, it has Iran doing the least it can get away with.

Duh...

AND YOU'RE BRAGGING ABOUT THAT?

who has a flat head dummy?

 

[bedowin62]

i'm trying to wrap my head around a thread title so stupid....................

isnt obama's "deal" with Iran exactly al example, or so he says. of him getting Iran to do what we want them to do?

I'm surprised you're having trouble, I'd have thought your head flat enough.

No, the deal doesn't have Iran rolling over and doing whatever the west wants, it has Iran doing the least it can get away with.

Duh...

AND YOU'RE BRAGGING ABOUT THAT?

who has a flat head dummy?

seriously what kind of idiot thinks a rebuttal such as yours is worth anything?

 

[bedowin62]

Yeah and asswipe Obama couldn't secure the release of four American hostages held for absolutely no reason, in exchange for $150 billion and lifting of sanction. Talk about total incompetence!

When no argument is left go to total irrelevance...

How is it irrelevant? obama couldnt secure the release of a battle-scarred Marine in a Mexican prison; but you're asking people to trust him on an agreement with an islamo-fascist state hell-bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon that threatens Armageddon on a regular basis, that you admited in another post is going to do whatever it can get away with?

please dont lecture others or make smarmy comments about the intelligence of others here; just makes you look dumber than the rest of your posts do

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Iran is already going forward to build ballistic missiles, and test those thy develop. What makes you think Iran will see an enforcement of weapons inspectors, after Obama tucked his tail in and backed out of his tough speech regarding that "red line" against Syria's use of chemical weapons? Iran knows very well how far this president will go on enforcement, which is why Iran is in control of the negotiating table regarding this "nuclear deal". What enforcement could Obama ever possibly do to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles? Iran doesn't have any respect for President Obama, after the world witnessed this president caving in and backing down with Syria. Why would they?

 

[Roudy]

Why would Trump fail when Reagan got them to fold on inauguration day?

Because Regan went against Congress and an Amendment he signed himself and disregarded the Constitution you all claim to love so much. So, what is Trump going to do for Iran?

Oh, and the last statement bolded in red....you all have the audacity to be whining about Hillary's e-mails......

Wiki:
The Iran–Contra affair (Persian: ایران-کنترا‎, Spanish: caso Irán-Contra), also referred to as Irangate,[1] Contragate[2] or the Iran–Contra scandal, was a political scandal in the United States that occurred during the second term of the Reagan Administration. Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several US hostages, and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

The investigation was impeded when large volumes of documents relating to the scandal were destroyed or withheld from investigators by Reagan administration officials.


And, as usual, Republicans continue to against the will of the people of the United States.

Although the President continued to favor support of the contras, opinion polls indicated that a majority of the public was not supportive.
Iran Contra Committee Key Findings

What Amendment did Reagan violate? How did he go against Congress on inauguration day. Are you drunk so early in the day?

Do you have trouble reading? I posted the Wiki explanation for you. Reagan was wheeling and dealing before election day, and negotiating with terrorists....something the GOP accuses Obama of doing when clearly he's not, but hypocritical because Reagan did negotiate with terrorists and the GOP looked the other way.


Here it is again....have someone explain it to you.

Senior administration officials secretly facilitated the sale of arms to Iran, which was the subject of an arms embargo.[3] They hoped thereby to secure the release of several US hostages, and to fund the Contras in Nicaragua. Under the Boland Amendment, further funding of the Contras by the government had been prohibited by Congress.

Yeah and asswipe Obama couldn't secure the release of four American hostages held for absolutely no reason, in exchange for $150 billion and lifting of sanction. Talk about total incompetence!

Yeah, Obama was able to go after and get Osama Bin Ladin.....after your doofus President, who went after the wrong country claimed he wasn't interested in getting him.....this after OBL was responsible for over 3000 deaths.....talk about incompetence. (Oh, and add another 4000+ that we lost due to his incompetence in going after the wrong country.)

Ha ha ha. "Obama was able to go after and get Bin Laden". When all else fails divert the subject to something Obama had absolutely nothing to do with.

 

[Roudy]

So in essence Obama managed to destroy the sanctions regime as well as all leverage the West had on Iran in exchange for NOTHING. Well that's not true, he did get his name on the "deal" which of course is a hoax, since there is no deal.

Now watch Iran wreak havoc in the region and the world.

No, the sanctions regime was being dismantled by European 'allies' who had lost patience with the US' endless war.

I partially agree. The European economy is in shambles and there was no way the Europeans could justify continuation of the sanctions when it could bring so much economic and financial relief to them. So Obama put some lipstick on the pig and called this total capitulation and appeasement to an Islamist terrorist regime a "deal".

Like I said, there is no deal, just another deception by the Obama and his administration.

 

[jwoodie]

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

Your "analysis" is absolutely mind numbing. Reread the title of this thread and then ask yourself:

Am I dumb enough to think Iran would roll over and comply with whatever the West agrees to?

 

[Roudy]

Yeah and asswipe Obama couldn't secure the release of four American hostages held for absolutely no reason, in exchange for $150 billion and lifting of sanction. Talk about total incompetence!

When no argument is left go to total irrelevance...

It's totally irrelevant to ask a country that's going to get $150 billion and lifting of sanctions which will bring further of hundreds of billions to their economy to release hostage which are being held for no reason whatsoever? You are a moron.

 

[g5000]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

Right. Even if this were a bad deal, the only way a bad deal could be worse than no deal is if the bad deal somehow accelerated Iran's nuclear weapons program, and no one has ever provided a shred of evidence to this effect.

Realpolitik. We live in a world which has bad people in it, and we have to find a way to live with them or else have perpetual war.

We lived with and made deals with the USSR. That's the benchmark. The Mother of all terror sponsoring states. A nation which actually was an existential threat to the US. And we made all kinds of treaties and agreements and trade deals with them, even though they wanted to obliterate us from the Universe, even though they violated the treaties and agreements and trade deals every chance they got.

And yet we still won out.

From that perspective, Iran is small potatoes and not worthy of the level of pants shitting we see coming from the fearmongers.

 

[Roudy]

So much for Mertex' bullshit polls:

Obama's Iran deal rhetoric troubles American Jews - CNNPolitics.com

Aaron Bandler - Poll: Plurality of American Jews Oppose Iran Deal

Liar.........your link is dated August 10.....this one is dated August 26....and from a Conservative source....so I dare you to say they are lying, idiot. You're drunk on the Faux News KoolAid. So much for your Faux News conservative bullshit.

By JON BASIL UTLEY • August 26, 2015

The Israel Lobby does not represent most Jews. Sound surprising? You’d never know it from most TV talk shows or Republicans denouncing the Iran agreement as a terminal threat to Israel, and least of all from “The Lobby” itself. Its intimidating power depends upon the myth that it represents all American Jews, when it does not even represent a majority. It should really be called the “Likud Lobby,” representing Netanyahu, neoconservatives, militant settlers on the West Bank, evangelicals (mainly old ones) impatient for Armageddon, and the military-industrial complex.
By a 20-point margin in various polls, American Jews support the Iran agreement.
American Jews Reject the Israel Lobby—and Support the Iran Deal

Bullshit. The poll you cited is the only one showing those numbers. It includes people who don't even know if they're Jewish, or "think" they're Jewish. It's a fraud. Ha ha ha.

 

[easyt65]

Republicans are NOT 'dumb' enough to think Iran will willingly roll over and do whatever the west wants it to do; however, Conservatives are intelligent enough to know that:
1. Economic Sanctions are one of the tools against a nation in an effort to get it to comply with agreed upon acceptable behavior. If negotiations and sanctions fail, what is left is military action. Obama just took sanctions completely off the table and handed Iran millions of dollars....which it just used to buy an extremely NASTY Surface-to-Air Missile defense system that it will use to protect its nuclear facilities.

2. Agreeing to a deal that states the US has no problem with Iran's claim that Israel has no right to exist basically flies in the face of everything we stand for as a nation and is an act of betrayal to our allies

3. Agreeing to a deal that allows Iran to continue to run, un-supervised, thousands of centrifuges refining uranium, requiring nearly a month's notice beofre any inspections occur, and THEN allowing Iran to conduct it's own inspections and report back to the UN is THE MOST STUPID THING EVER HEARD OF! (Do Liberals REALLY think self-inspections by Iran will prevent it from cheating and building a nuclear weapon?)

4. Allowing Iran to do this WILL initiate a nuclear arm's race in the Middle East, as Saudi has already declared this to be so, and WILL result in a massive war in the Middle East... as several Middle Eastern nations have already declared.

 

[Roudy]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

Right. Even if this were a bad deal, the only way a bad deal could be worse than no deal is if the bad deal somehow accelerated Iran's nuclear weapons program, and no one has ever provided a shred of evidence to this effect.

Realpolitik. We live in a world which has bad people in it, and we have to find a way to live with them or else have perpetual war.

We lived with and made deals with the USSR. That's the benchmark. The Mother of all terror sponsoring states. A nation which actually was an existential threat to the US. And we made all kinds of treaties and agreements and trade deals with them, even though they wanted to obliterate us from the Universe, even though they violated the treaties and agreements and trade deals every chance they got.

And yet we still won out.

From that perspective, Iran is small potatoes and not worthy of the level of pants shitting we see coming from the fearmongers.

Wrong. The effects of this deal will be felt when Obama has left office and leaves the next president and later generations with the mess he has created by making Iran much more powerful and aggressive than before.