Liberal Logic Regarding the Iran Deal

[bedowin62]

One side deal made invloves the Parchin military base where explosives testing related to warheads is being done, iran has refused access to it despite Kerry saying his agreement includes 100% unfettered acccess

 

[Davros]

it isnt a path towards peace;

you could kinda guess this, if you arent a brainwashed idiot, when you see Saudi Arabia and Israel agreeing on the matter

Israel and definitely not Saudi Arabia are not my compass for what's right and what's wrong.

right and wrong

is that what it's about?

you said it is a path toward peace; it isnt

It is a path towards peace between Iran and the US. Iran sticking to a commitment to non nuclear proliferation promotes peace. Saudi Arabia says we're wrong. Oh well.

 

[bedowin62]

the other side deal involves PMDs, or possible military dimensions.
there are TWELVE areas where iranian research could involve nuclear weapon developement. Iran has agreed to talk about what they are doing in one ONE area

 

[bedowin62]

it isnt a path towards peace;

you could kinda guess this, if you arent a brainwashed idiot, when you see Saudi Arabia and Israel agreeing on the matter

Israel and definitely not Saudi Arabia are not my compass for what's right and what's wrong.

right and wrong

is that what it's about?

you said it is a path toward peace; it isnt

It is a path towards peace between Iran and the US. Iran sticking to a commitment to non nuclear proliferation promotes peace. Saudi Arabia says we're wrong. Oh well.

"oh well"

yea oh well; they have enough money to develop their own bomb anyway

 

[Contumacious]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

MR SCUMBAG, SIR

IT IS ***NOT*** THE US BUSINESS TO DETERMINE IF A PARTICULAR COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR POWER.

 

[bedowin62]

UM NO; lifting sanctions is an incentive to get them to hurry up and finish making the bomb. once they have it the whole thing will be moot

Wrong again. They must follow inspections regime or else sanctions will be brought back.

in a timeframe that renders them meaningless

try again

 

[bedowin62]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

MR SCUMBAG, SIR

IT IS ***NOT*** THE US BUSINESS TO DETERMINE IF A PARTICULAR COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR POWER.

of course it is our business. if that isnt something in our national interest what the phuk is?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

UM NO; lifting sanctions is an incentive to get them to hurry up and finish making the bomb. once they have it the whole thing will be moot

Wrong again. They must follow inspections regime or else sanctions will be brought back.

big deal.....they are back to square one.....oh wait.....PLUS BILLIONS.....

 

[Contumacious]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

MR SCUMBAG, SIR

IT IS ***NOT*** THE US BUSINESS TO DETERMINE IF A PARTICULAR COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR POWER.

of course it is our business. if that isnt something in our national interest what the phuk is?

ACTING WITHIN THE PARAMETERS DELINEATED BY THE US CONSTITUTION (1787).


.

 

[bedowin62]

UM NO; lifting sanctions is an incentive to get them to hurry up and finish making the bomb. once they have it the whole thing will be moot

Wrong again. They must follow inspections regime or else sanctions will be brought back.

big deal.....they are back to square one.....oh wait.....PLUS BILLIONS.....

about a HUNDRED BILLION that was tied up in sanctions

 

[bedowin62]

type in huge bold letters; it means you're right

 

[jwoodie]

MR SCUMBAG, SIR

IT IS ***NOT*** THE US BUSINESS TO DETERMINE IF A PARTICULAR COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE NUCLEAR POWER.

In that case, why are we entering into an agreement with them at all?

 

[Derideo_Te]

The latest argument in favor of the Iran nuclear agreement is that not approving it will lead to war. This is a prime example of intentional deceit by the so-called "liberals" in this country.

1. How did war with Iran suddenly become a certainty unless we approve this agreement? Was Obama preparing for a military strike if the Iranians didn't agree to this deal? Why such urgency?

2. Were the sanctions against Iran failing? If so, why would Iran be interested in a deal to lift them?

3. If this is such a good deal for the U.S., why go to the U.N. before getting approval from the Senate?

4. Would a nuclear Iran be a minor regional threat to its neighbors or a major threat to the security of the U.S.? If the former, why worry about making a deal with them in the first place? If the latter, why agree to a path that will guarantee this eventuality?

It is obvious that a larger agenda is at play here. Is this Liberal "logic" the refuge of scoundrels?

Given that Republicans have been whining for a war against Iran ever since this century began and that the US has gone to war against nations to both the east and west of Iran Obama must have been talking about what will happen if a Republican wins in 2016.

Oh, and just to prove that is the case the Republicans in Congress have all been threatening that even if this deal with Obama is approved (over their objections) the next Republican president won't adhere to it.

Only question that needs to be answered is why is the OP so woefully ignorant of his party's warmongering and bloodlust in the middle east?

funny how more blood is being shed now i the Middle East; less of ours but MUCH MORE of others; and that's ok with you nutjobs on the Left

It wasn't being shed until Bush jr illegally invaded Iraq.

 

[bedowin62]

it's 2015; we invaded iraq in 2003; i remember it well becaue i went there

you've had more than 12 years to prove an "illegal invasion"

chalk that up to one more Progressive FAILURE????

 

[Davros]

You don't know what's in the so-called side-deals, so how do you know that they void the rest of the agreement and the threat of sanctions? Hint ... they don't. Iran cannot develop nuclear bombs at Parachin if they do not have nuclear weapons capability, which is enforced through inspection of their actual nuclear sites.

This deal is a path towards peace. Rejecting the deal is a path towards greater risk of war due to Iran pursuing nuclear weapons and not allowing inspections of their nuclear sites.

 

[bedowin62]

You don't know what's in the so-called side-deals, so how do you know that they void the rest of the agreement and the threat of sanctions? Hint ... they don't. Iran cannot develop nuclear bombs at Parachin if they do not have nuclear weapons capability, which is enforced through inspection of their actual nuclear sites.

This deal is a path towards peace. Rejecting the deal is a path towards greater risk of war due to Iran pursuing nuclear weapons and not allowing inspections of their nuclear sites.

sure einstein; thats why obama doesnt even have a concensus of his own Party on the matter. must be fox News' fault?

 

[bedowin62]

you dont know what is in them if i dont genius. Hint: so then you cant tell me what they say or dont say

 

[bedowin62]

no rejecting the deal isnt a path toward war; agreeing to the deal is a path toward a nuclear iran

there is like a 45-day period before any sanctions kick back in

almost everybody agrees that makes the deal a sham

 

[ScreamingEagle]

You don't know what's in the so-called side-deals, so how do you know that they void the rest of the agreement and the threat of sanctions? Hint ... they don't. Iran cannot de elope nuclear bombs at Parachin if they do not have nuclear weapons capability, which is enforced through inspection of their actual nuclear sites.

This deal is a path towards peace. Rejecting the real is a path towards greater risk of war due to Iran pursuing nuclear weapons and not allowing inspections of their nuclear sites.

'a path towards peace'...? hardly....but i guess it could be if you look at it from the Muslim perspective......the 'religion of peace' is only at peace when all submit to its control....

 

[Davros]

You don't know what's in the so-called side-deals, so how do you know that they void the rest of the agreement and the threat of sanctions? Hint ... they don't. Iran cannot develop nuclear bombs at Parachin if they do not have nuclear weapons capability, which is enforced through inspection of their actual nuclear sites.

This deal is a path towards peace. Rejecting the deal is a path towards greater risk of war due to Iran pursuing nuclear weapons and not allowing inspections of their nuclear sites.

sure einstein; thats why obama doesnt even have a concensus of his own Party on the matter. must be fox News' fault?

Actually it's Netanyahu's fault. For coming to capitol hill and spreading false information and fear mongering.

I don't know what's in the so-called side deals because it's classified. But overall I trust the IAEA to not be,secretly plotting with Iran to help them get a bomb.