Re: IRAN.....Diplomacy vs. Belligerence...

[nat4900]

I know how long it would have taken to get rid of any incriminating evidence and 24 days would be sufficient.

Perhaps......but given tons and tons of Fabreze sprayers.

 

[nat4900]

I posted on another thread the numbers of Dems vs Repubs who voted for and against Iraq. The Dems come off MUCH better...

Only ONE republican (from a liberal state) had the guts to differ from the sheep herd.

 

[nat4900]

Right, that's why they returned all 7 Americans they were holding..............oh wait, they didn't did they.

I know it'd be tough for you....but here's a fact for you to ponder:

We are returning Iranians who were imprisoned for breaches on the sanctions we imposed.....

Iran has refused to release 2 Americans (one a CIA agent) who were convicted of spying.

I know, I know that facts are a bitch, but.............

 

[OKTexas]

Right, that's why they returned all 7 Americans they were holding..............oh wait, they didn't did they.

I know it'd be tough for you....but here's a fact for you to ponder:

We are returning Iranians who were imprisoned for breaches on the sanctions we imposed.....

Iran has refused to release 2 Americans (one a CIA agent) who were convicted of spying.

I know, I know that facts are a bitch, but.............

And?

I am supposed to be impressed when a negotiation with Iran consist of giving them everything they want and only getting half what you want. Giving away the store is not smart negotiating. Plus your dear leader just told the rest of the terrorist world that having American hostages is indeed a legitimate means to an end, not a good precedent.

 

[eagle1462010]

Right, that's why they returned all 7 Americans they were holding..............oh wait, they didn't did they.

I know it'd be tough for you....but here's a fact for you to ponder:

We are returning Iranians who were imprisoned for breaches on the sanctions we imposed.....

Iran has refused to release 2 Americans (one a CIA agent) who were convicted of spying.

I know, I know that facts are a bitch, but.............

An end of sanctions that will allow them to openly purchase higher grade electronics and centrifuges.........Allow the purchase of upgraded anti air assets, cruise missiles, and ICBM technology. Yeah, that's a win win for America.

 

[nat4900]

I am supposed to be impressed when a negotiation with Iran consist of giving them everything they want and only getting half what you want. Giving away the store is not smart negotiating. Plus your dear leader just told the rest of the terrorist world that having American hostages is indeed a legitimate means to an end, not a good precedent.

You're just echoing Rubio.......Do you really expect another sovereign country to simply give up people who went there to spy on them? Would we do that?
Beside, the deal with Iran is about their nukes.......swapping prisoners (NOT hostages) is a nice side-line to the thawing relations between us,

 

[nat4900]

An end of sanctions that will allow them to openly purchase higher grade electronics and centrifuges.........Allow the purchase of upgraded anti air assets, cruise missiles, and ICBM technology. Yeah, that's a win win for America.

What morons like you FAIL (consistently) to understand is that the deal is NOT just with the U.S. but Russia, China, and Europe wanted this deal to go through (China is owed $30 billion from Iran and they wanted the Iranian funds unfrozen)....Further, the US has ONLY less that $2 billion of Iranian funds. Finally, China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan are ALL nuclear countries who trade with Iran and couldn't care less if your panties are all twisted over partisan bullshit.

 

[eagle1462010]

An end of sanctions that will allow them to openly purchase higher grade electronics and centrifuges.........Allow the purchase of upgraded anti air assets, cruise missiles, and ICBM technology. Yeah, that's a win win for America.

What morons like you FAIL (consistently) to understand is that the deal is NOT just with the U.S. but Russia, China, and Europe wanted this deal to go through (China is owed $30 billion from Iran and they wanted the Iranian funds unfrozen)....Further, the US has ONLY less that $2 billion of Iranian funds. Finally, China, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan are ALL nuclear countries who trade with Iran and couldn't care less if your panties are all twisted over partisan bullshit.

And? The list of countries don't have our best interests at hand.............Funny you should mention North Korea........they have something in common with Iran.

Now tell me about BRICS and the current economic War with some of the very countries you just quoted.....

 

[nat4900]

And? The list of countries don't have our best interests at hand.............Funny you should mention North Korea........they have something in common with Iran.

Now tell me about BRICS and the current economic War with some of the very countries you just quoted.....

What ?????? What does Brazil, Russia, China, India and S. Africa have to do with freeing prisoners from Iranian jails?

 

[OKTexas]

I am supposed to be impressed when a negotiation with Iran consist of giving them everything they want and only getting half what you want. Giving away the store is not smart negotiating. Plus your dear leader just told the rest of the terrorist world that having American hostages is indeed a legitimate means to an end, not a good precedent.

You're just echoing Rubio.......Do you really expect another sovereign country to simply give up people who went there to spy on them? Would we do that?
Beside, the deal with Iran is about their nukes.......swapping prisoners (NOT hostages) is a nice side-line to the thawing relations between us,

We've swapped captured spies with our enemies for literally hundreds of years, usually one for one.

Here's some examples:
Spies swapped - Feb 10, 1962 - HISTORY.com

Here's another example of your dear leaders negotiating skills, can you say 10 for 4.
U.S., Russia swap spies - CNN.com

Here's an example where the west usually got the better end of the deal.
Spy swaps of the cold war

The point is your dear leader didn't just exchange people for people, he made several other concessions like taking people off travel ban list.

 

[nat4900]

We've swapped captured spies with our enemies for literally hundreds of years, usually one for one.

Two issues that morons.....like you.....just don't get:

1. Those Iranians we held prisoners were NOT spies; they were trying to broker some deals to get items that Iran couldn't get because of the sanctions.....they were NOT here to steal secrets.....but most of all....

2, We are (except for right wingers like you) a hell of a lot nicer than Iran and we'll swap a dozen individuals just to get one of our own back.

 

[OKTexas]

We've swapped captured spies with our enemies for literally hundreds of years, usually one for one.

Two issues that morons.....like you.....just don't get:

1. Those Iranians we held prisoners were NOT spies; they were trying to broker some deals to get items that Iran couldn't get because of the sanctions.....they were NOT here to steal secrets.....but most of all....

2, We are (except for right wingers like you) a hell of a lot nicer than Iran and we'll swap a dozen individuals just to get one of our own back.

Incapable of keeping the conversation civil, fuck off.

 

[TooTall]

Kerry and Clinton, gullible or afraid. OK! It sure looked to me like they were the war mongers. They even voted that way in the Senate.

I posted on another thread the numbers of Dems vs Repubs who voted for and against Iraq. The Dems come off MUCH better...

What LEADING Democrats voted nay?

 

[eagle1462010]

And? The list of countries don't have our best interests at hand.............Funny you should mention North Korea........they have something in common with Iran.

Now tell me about BRICS and the current economic War with some of the very countries you just quoted.....

What ?????? What does Brazil, Russia, China, India and S. Africa have to do with freeing prisoners from Iranian jails?

You quoted the countries not me. Are they there for their best interests or ours.............Laughing.

 

[TooTall]

Eliminating a threat to your countries very existence is justified.

Well, that depends if its a threat to country's (correct, spelling, btw) survival OR a threat to that country's leadership survival.

After all, is "death to America [or Israel]" much different than a superpower calling one's country part of the "axis of evil"??

If you don't know the difference you are to be pitied.

 

[nat4900]

You quoted the countries not me. Are they there for their best interests or ours.............Laughing.

Brazil, India and South Africa were brought up by me????
Who FIRST brought up BRICS?

Are you drinking......again?

 

[eagle1462010]

You quoted the countries not me. Are they there for their best interests or ours.............Laughing.

Brazil, India and South Africa were brought up by me????
Who FIRST brought up BRICS?

Are you drinking......again?

2 of the countries are BRICS..........They are the main ones in the group, and they don't have our best interests at hand, and neither do you. Chamberland is still proud of you.

Me...........Not so much.

 

[nat4900]

2 of the countries are BRICS..........They are the main ones in the group, and they don't have our best interests at hand, and neither do you. Chamberland is still proud of you.

Me...........Not so much.

Another few brain cells r half brain, and even YOU would realize what a moron you are. LOL

 

[eagle1462010]

2 of the countries are BRICS..........They are the main ones in the group, and they don't have our best interests at hand, and neither do you. Chamberland is still proud of you.

Me...........Not so much.

Another few brain cells r half brain, and even YOU would realize what a moron you are. LOL

History will prove me correct, but I hope I'm wrong and your right. History has a habit of repeating which makes your side of the equation less than likely. But dream on.......and drink the Kool Aide.

 

[Dr Grump]

Kerry and Clinton, gullible or afraid. OK! It sure looked to me like they were the war mongers. They even voted that way in the Senate.

I posted on another thread the numbers of Dems vs Repubs who voted for and against Iraq. The Dems come off MUCH better...

What LEADING Democrats voted nay?

Irrelevant. 126 Dems in congress voted against it, while 82 for. 215 Repubs voted for it while a paltry 6 voted against it. The Dem ratio against the war in the house far exceeded that of the GOP.

48 GoP senators voted for it, 1 against. 21 Dem Senators voted against it, while 29 voted for.

An absolute failure by the warmongering right.

Overall 147 Dem politicians voted against it while 103 voted for it. As a political party the vast majority were against it.

Overall 263 GoP politicians voted for it, while 7 against. That is a massive majority for the war.
Irrelevant. 126 Dems in congress voted against it, while 82 for. 215 Repubs voted for it while a paltry 6 voted against it. The Dem ratio against the war in the house far exceeded that of the GOP.

48 GoP senators voted for it, 1 against. 21 Dem Senators voted against it, while 29 voted for.

An absolute failure by the warmongering right.

Overall 147 Dem politicians voted against it while 103 voted for it. As a political party the vast majority were against it.

Overall 263 GoP politicians voted for it, while 7 against. That is a massive majority for the war.