Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
that would be a topic of a real negotiation.
Yeah, you folks were really backing Obama with the Bergdahl swap, weren't you?
3. So the great obama deal just "postpones" an inevitible war? Wow, how wonderful. If its inevitible, why not do it now before they get nukes?
1. the sanctions have worked, thats why they even came to the table for this stupid deal, to get them lifted
2. War is more likely with the deal. Israel and Saudi Arabia will not tolerate an Iran with nukes.
No, because he made a terrible deal. 4 terrorists for a deserter and colaborator? Thats not a swap, thats taking it up the ass.
Somehow, your response....verbatim...was expected; right wingers are very, very predictable.
A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.
...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.
The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime
(The choice is blatantly false.
- “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East,” says the president.
Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated that “we have a range of options” should the deal fail, along with Admiral Richardson, the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations.
...war would not result from the rejection of the deal.
A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.
The purpose of politics is to create conditions that make it more likely that a country will win a war. And that is exactly what the Iranians are doing with this flawed agreement.
...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.
In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Despite his reassurances, the administration delivered a bad deal.
The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime.
The sanctions regime is the key to slowing down Iran’s nuclear program. Sanctions were effective, according to the administration."
8 Things Obama Got Wrong on the Iran Deal
“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
―Yogi Berra
My confession about a prediction: I was sure Romney would win.
I was so certain that the American public would not re-elect this loser....but it turned out that there were enough losers to give this loser the victory. And, sadly for us all, OBAMA went on to double down on failure and ineptitude..
But I'm ready to make another prediction: when it comes to a vote on the Iran nuclear deal in the Senate, Chuck Schumer will prove that neither his religion nor his patriotism take precedent to his party.
One more lock-step Liberal selling out the nation and the world.
(The choice is blatantly false.
- “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East,” says the president.
Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated that “we have a range of options” should the deal fail, along with Admiral Richardson, the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations.
...war would not result from the rejection of the deal.
A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.
The purpose of politics is to create conditions that make it more likely that a country will win a war. And that is exactly what the Iranians are doing with this flawed agreement.
...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.
In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Despite his reassurances, the administration delivered a bad deal.
The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime.
The sanctions regime is the key to slowing down Iran’s nuclear program. Sanctions were effective, according to the administration."
8 Things Obama Got Wrong on the Iran Deal
Not a single thought of your own in your post, you bloody PLAGURIST! Citing the source at the bottom of the page without proper and customary attribution to each discrete portion OR Notice Cover of Attribution and of Emphasis is despicable, goes far beyond the Fair Use Doctrine and just a form of lying through your teeth.
PC = Failed Character / Flawed Person
(The choice is blatantly false.
- “Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East,” says the president.
Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the joint chiefs, reiterated that “we have a range of options” should the deal fail, along with Admiral Richardson, the nominee to be the next chief of naval operations.
...war would not result from the rejection of the deal.
A war is more likely to result if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, which the deal makes easier over the long run.
The purpose of politics is to create conditions that make it more likely that a country will win a war. And that is exactly what the Iranians are doing with this flawed agreement.
...there are options other than the deal or a war in the Middle East, despite Obama’s insistence that “we would be standing alone” if this deal fails.
In 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that no deal is better than a bad deal. Despite his reassurances, the administration delivered a bad deal.
The way to fix the situation is to stop promoting the bad deal and rather devote as much effort and political capital to strengthening the sanctions regime.
The sanctions regime is the key to slowing down Iran’s nuclear program. Sanctions were effective, according to the administration."
8 Things Obama Got Wrong on the Iran Deal
Not a single thought of your own in your post, you bloody PLAGURIST! Citing the source at the bottom of the page without proper and customary attribution to each discrete portion OR Notice Cover of Attribution and of Emphasis is despicable, goes far beyond the Fair Use Doctrine and just a form of lying through your teeth.
PC = Failed Character / Flawed Person
Obviously you are either lying or you don't understand what plagiarism is.
As you admit...I "cite the source."
Your own words identify you as a lying blowhard.
The fact is, liars from your side of the aisle will do anything and say anything to attempt to deny the facts that show you to be low-life fascists.
3. So the great obama deal just "postpones" an inevitible war? Wow, how wonderful. If its inevitible, why not do it now before they get nukes?
Moronic response....Does Iran have a nuke TODAY???basically, "lets have a war now, why wait for the fun to start?"
Iran, like N. Korea and Pakistan, will eventually have a nuke...Our best bet is for an Iranian nuke to be in safer hands. Israel has opened the Pandora's Box by having an estimated 300-400 nukes since the late 1950s.
Thats not a swap, thats taking it up the ass.
Another right winger practicing (with poor results) his skills at Shakespearean sonnet writing.
no, idiot. the idea is to keep them from ever getting one. this so-called deal will ensure that they will get nukes.
So, WITHOUT the deal they wouldn't get a nuke, deadfish?
See....you're just too much of an imbecile to debate.
We have no hostages there, we have criminals.no, idiot. the idea is to keep them from ever getting one. this so-called deal will ensure that they will get nukes.
So, WITHOUT the deal they wouldn't get a nuke, deadfish?
See....you're just too much of an imbecile to debate.
They get nukes either way. The difference is that with the deal they also get sanctions lifted and billions of dollars. And we get--------------------------------------------nothing. and 4 american hostages remain in iranian prisons.
At least with sanctions on them it makes it harder for them to make a nuclear bomb.
But rest easy, if they get close to having a bomb, either Israel or saudi arabia will take the bomb factory off the map.
We have no hostages there, we have criminals.
