Liberal Logic Regarding the Iran Deal

[Contumacious]

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?

BECAUSE SINCE 1914 WE HAVE BECOME A WARMONGER STATE AND A CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.


.

 

[MACAULAY]

Would you Obama Cowards tell me where I have gone awry on this assessment to the Deal with Iran?

In the end, Iran promised to put its nuclear weapons program on ice, not destroy it, just on ice...and the ice does not include their peaceful nuclear program, on which they will continue to work. And they pretty much get to decide whats peaceful. Also, they continue to work on inter-ballistic missile technology.

They did this for--Money. A massive amount. It will take them until Obama gets out of office to get all the money, and so their promise is good till then.

The rest is only implicitly agreed to. Iran has always cheated, and so it is implicitly agreed that they will continue to cheat....meaning that the 10 year haitus is more likely to be just 3 or 4.

But that's O.K. Obama is safely out of office; his successor gets the blame for not enforcing his Grand Deal; and his legacy is protected.

In the end, the Persians traded Time for Money. Like a Rug for a Camel.

Obama says he traded War for Peace.

But, we will get War in Time. What do I tell my children?

 

[bedowin62]

type in huge bold letters

it means you must be right

 

[Contumacious]

type in huge bold letters

it means you must be right

CORRECTOMUNDO.


YOU ARE OF COURSE, FREE TO MARSHALL ***FACTS****IN ORDER TO REBUT AND REFUTE.

 

[jwoodie]

BECAUSE SINCE 1914 WE HAVE BECOME A WARMONGER STATE AND A CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.

LOL, this is actually getting to be fun!

If your (bogus) reason for entering an agreement with Iran is because "we have become a warmonger state and a continuing criminal enterprise," why don't you advocate that we stop being a warmonger state and not enter into this agreement?

P.S. I notice that even your fellow travelers on the Left are refraining from chiming in on this. Is it because you have so eloquently represented their opinion or because they don't like answering pointed questions?

 

[Contumacious]

BECAUSE SINCE 1914 WE HAVE BECOME A WARMONGER STATE AND A CONTINUING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE.

LOL, this is actually getting to be fun!

If your (bogus) reason for entering an agreement with Iran is because "we have become a warmonger state and a continuing criminal enterprise," why don't you advocate that we stop being a warmonger state and not enter into this agreement?

P.S. I notice that even your fellow travelers on the Left are refraining from chiming in on this. Is it because you have so eloquently represented their opinion or because they don't like answering pointed questions?

LOL,

IN ORDER TO BE ELECTABLE NOWADAYS A POLITICIAN MUST SUPPORT ----AND NOT THREATEN --- THE GARGANTUAN WELFARE/WARFARE POLICE STATE.

ACCORDING TO OBAMA BUREAUCRAT , JONATHAN GRUBER, AMERICANS ARE STUPID.

LEFTISTS DO NOT SUPPORT MY OPINION BECAUSE I AM NOT A LEFTIST.

I SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION (1787) , CAPITALISM AND FREE ENTERPRISE.


.

 

[Clementine]

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?

Without the "deal", the radicals in Iran would still hold to their archaic and cruel beliefs. While some idiot lefties say let them do as they please, they forget that by lifting sanctions, Obama made it much easier for them to build their weapons. It's one thing to keep sanctions in place to send the message that they cannot count on us, but quite another to take steps to help them the way Obama did. So, if the left thinks we should mind our own business, shouldn't they be upset that Obama got involved and decided to represent Iran in order to give them the green light?