Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[rhodescholar]

Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president. I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations. There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns. Sanctions are dependent on these other countries. There is no defending their actions.

All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions. Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.

But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.

 

[Ernie S.]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

Look! I'm willing to bet that you don't think insane Americans should own guns, right?
Countries with insane leadership and radical dogma shouldn't have atom bombs for the same reason.

 

[Faun]

Suuuure. He didn't remember earning a Bronze Star with Valor. He remembered the event but just forgot about being under fire ... forgot about his boat getting shot up ... forgot about how it was common for vietcong to open fire after boats hit mines ... forgot about being given a medal ...

Except his boat wasn't shot up and he thought he was given the medal for coming to the aid of another boat that hit a mine.

Sure, uh-huh

His [Thurlow] account was further called into question by a battle damage assessment report on another Swift boat, PCF-51, involved in the March 13 action. The report listed three .30-caliber bullet holes in the superstructure of the 50-foot patrol boat​

Except that wasn't Kerry or Thrulow's swift boat with the bullet holes in it. So that doesn't really wash, either.

I guess you're just going to bounce from one excuse to the next, huh? Even if they're not true.

Actually, yes, it was Thurlow's boat, PCF-51, which was shot up.

Furthermore, Robert Lambert, who also served on PCF-51 and the third man to earn a Bronze Star for bravery that day, also recalls them earning their Bronze Stars with 'V' for being under fire. And he was on the same boat as Thurlow.

 

[Coyote]

Your conservative wars have solved nothing to date. Why do you believe starting a war with Iran would be any different?

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

Look! I'm willing to bet that you don't think insane Americans should own guns, right?
Countries with insane leadership and radical dogma shouldn't have atom bombs for the same reason.

I'm not saying they SHOULD have a nuke. I'm saying look at the realistic alternatives.

 

[Coyote]

Sorry you can't see the difference between current senators and a former president. I think Carter was wrong, but it's nothing compared to current senators sending a letter to a foreign country trying to ruin negotiations. There are multiple countries in these negotiations and these senators just made us look like clowns. Sanctions are dependent on these other countries. There is no defending their actions.

All the letter did was state to iran that the current president cannot sideline congress, and they will have a say in the contours of any agreement. The only people whining about this is the far left media and the clapping lemmings too dumb to form their own opinions. Otherwise, they'd have spoken up when obama had Cameron calling members of congress, or when it became public knowledge that obama is funding and his staff working on the campaign of one of Netanyahu's opponents.

But according to the dim left, breaking the laws are acceptable as long as its for "their" side.

Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?

 

[rhodescholar]

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

Treaties that the soviets broke almost immediately.

BTW, those who keep whining that iran wouldn't use a nuke against israel miss 2 basic facts:

1- they don't need to, the threat of the nuclear umbrella empower their terrorist army proxies
2-its is vastly more difficult to trace the source of an atomic bomb than the media or the clueless make it out to be.

Were iran to use one, or hand it off to a proxy, there is no certainty it can be traced back to them, and given the amount of propaganda/misdirection/Israel hatred one sees in the world - so many idiots still think Israel is a greater threat to world peace than iran no matter what iran does, there would be a huge amount of backlash and effort to not retaliate against iran. The jew-haters and anti-western trash, led by the nose by putin and khameini, would bleat "it wasn't iran!" all day, so it is not as black and white as declaring iran did it, and attacking them.

Iran murdered thousands of american GIs in iraq, yet we still see the far left railing against retaliating against them even now.

 

[rhodescholar]

Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?

That was a position they could not argue against, but don't think they did not try to paint Nixon as a liar and a fraud when he landed in china. Democrats have never held back undermining a sitting president before, it is only the news media driving this furor so that the bleating sheep can whine, "oh, the senators are just so awful !"....you're being played, and are not smart enough to see it.

 

[Coyote]

Treaties that the soviets broke almost immediately.

BTW, those who keep whining that iran wouldn't use a nuke against israel miss 2 basic facts:

1- they don't need to, the threat of the nuclear umbrella empowered their terrorist army proxies
2-its is vastly more difficult to trace the source of an atomic bomb than the media or the clueless make it out to be.

1. Exactly. That is why the constant refrain of nuclear annilation is irrelevant. None of this means that any of us want to see Iran with nuclear weaponry. Where we disagree is the best strategy to prevent or contain it.
2. Not really. There are only a small number of countries in that area that possess nuclear bombs and their capabilities are well known.

Were iran to use one, or hand it off to a proxy, there is no certainty it can be traced back to them, and given the amount of propaganda/misdirection/Israel hatred one sees in the world - so many idiots still think Israel is a greater threat to world peace than iran no matter what iran does, there would be a huge amount of backlash and effort to not retaliate against iran. The jew-haters and anti-western trash, led by the nose by putin and khameini, would bleat "it wasn't iran!" all day, so it is not as black and white as declaring iran did it, and attacking them.

Iran murdered thousands of american GIs in iraq, yet we still see the far left railing against retaliating against them even now.

Do we want yet a third war in the Middle East? I do not see any country handing nuclear weaponry off to a proxy because the destruction would effect everyone.

 

[Coyote]

Did the Democrats do that to Nixon when he was dealing with the Soviets? China?

That was a position they could not argue against, but don't think they did not try to paint Nixon as a liar and a fraud when he landed in china. Democrats have never held back undermining a sitting president before, it is only the news media driving this furor so that the bleating sheep can whine, "oh, the senators are just so awful !"....you're being played, and are not smart enough to see it.

Not to this extent. I can't recall an incident of a group of Democrats creating a letter specifically telling a foreign power that whatever they negotiate with the president will be nullified when he's out of office. That is a line I have not seen crossed before and it amazes me that you guys keep defending it. If Dems did that to a Repub president you would not defend it. It doesn't matter who does it - it's way over the line and it is unprecedented. Even their own party is uncomfortable with that.

 

[Ernie S.]

There were idiots claiming the same crap before we were bombed at pearl harbor; had the US intervened in WW2 earlier, many lives would have been saved.

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

Look! I'm willing to bet that you don't think insane Americans should own guns, right?
Countries with insane leadership and radical dogma shouldn't have atom bombs for the same reason.

I'm not saying they SHOULD have a nuke. I'm saying look at the realistic alternatives.

The only realistic alternative is to prevent, by any means necessary Iran's acquisition of atomic bombs.
The Senate has some suggestions for President obama and seeing they have to approve any agreement he negotiates, it would be in his best interest to seek the advice of the Senate majority during negotiations to avoid the embarrassment of having his "great achievement" tossed in the trash when it reaches the Senate floor.

BUT, he will not include the GOP, instead thinking he can sign an agreement by executive order or some such shit. One day he looks like a weak ineffectual pussy, the next he looks like a tin pot dictator. Which is he?

 

[Brain357]

Obama's policies vis-a-vis Iran are a danger to our national security. Why can't you libtards get that for once in your lives?

These senators have embarrassed us on a world stage. They have lowered our standing in the world and insulted all the countries involved in these negotiations. Our enemies now see us as divided and weak. I still am in shock at what these morons did.

Why give a damn about "embarrassment on the world stage"? Are these senators your close relatives or something? No. As long as U.S. policy is geared towards protecting its citizenry (us), we're good. Obama has done the exact opposite for the entirety of his tenure in office.

And what gives you the impression that Iran sees us as "weak"? Divided, sure. That is a hallmark of a democracy, something Iran doesn't know shit about. But weak?

Do you understand what foreign policy is? Of course embarrassment on the world stage impacts it

Suppose you were to tell the world that another country had WMDs and that they need to help you invade them.......then after you invaded you found nothing

Don't you think embarrassment matters?

They lowered our standing in the world and showed us as divided and weak. I bet Putin is very happy. Who elects senators to make us look weak on a world stage?

We elected Senators to stop obama's agenda and to once again be strong on the world stage.

Well they made us look weak and divided. Better vote differently next time. I'm sure Putin is loving them.

 

[Coyote]

So you would have us start another world war? And that would solve what, exactly, other than our existence on this planet, that is. By the way, you didn't answer my question.

It is Iran who wants WW III. Don't you understand that yet?

I don't think they do. They want to be a regional power and they want to be "respected", and nuclear technology and weaponry is one way to attain "respect" and power. India and Pakistan have nukes and are formable enemies yet neither has anilated the other. Israel has nukes that are much more powerful then anything Iran could produce in the forseable future with the technology they are currently working on (I think Doc pointed that out but everyone ignores it). If Iran were to do anything to Israel - it would have a 5 mile radius and Iran would be obliterated in return. There's a difference between rhetoric and action and despite propaganda and rhetoric to the contrary, Iran is surprisingly stable and doesn't strike me as insane in the way NK is for example. The current set of negotiations are very reminiscent to the old Salt Talks that that started with executive agreements to freeze weaponry and led eventually to a long term treaty.

Look! I'm willing to bet that you don't think insane Americans should own guns, right?
Countries with insane leadership and radical dogma shouldn't have atom bombs for the same reason.

I'm not saying they SHOULD have a nuke. I'm saying look at the realistic alternatives.

The only realistic alternative is to prevent, by any means necessary Iran's acquisition of atomic bombs.
The Senate has some suggestions for President obama and seeing they have to approve any agreement he negotiates, it would be in his best interest to seek the advice of the Senate majority during negotiations to avoid the embarrassment of having his "great achievement" tossed in the trash when it reaches the Senate floor.

They do NOT have to approve any agreement he negotiates. Look at the history of executive agreements in negotiations - it did not start with Obama. It would not be in his best interests to seek the advice of the Senate majority because they are more interested in preventing any kind of achievement for Obama and this has been their stance since he was elected and before he even set foot in office.

BUT, he will not include the GOP, instead thinking he can sign an agreement by executive order or some such shit. One day he looks like a weak ineffectual pussy, the next he looks like a tin pot dictator. Which is he?

He will only need to include the Senate if it becomes a treaty.

What exact alternatives do you suggest that Iranians would accept? Like I said - if all the options are bad then you are forced to choose the best of a bad lot and that is what we have.

 

[JoeB131]

If you read it like a complete idiot, I suppose it might be. I don't see that.

Of course you don't. You also don't see why flying the flag of people who wanted to keep slavery legal MIGHT be offensive to black folks.

Cotton is another typical knuckle-dragger from the south. It's amazing he walks upright.

 

[Lakhota]

The Sunday talk shows should be very interesting - watching those NaziCon Senators trying to spin their treason. I'm curious how Fox's Chris Wallace will address the issue.

 

[JoeB131]

We elected Senators to stop obama's agenda and to once again be strong on the world stage.

Um, yeah. How does this accomplish that, exactly?

We've just told the Iranians, Britsh, German, French, Russians and Chinese that we can't be trusted to uphold any agreement we make because the GOP is so batshit crazy they'd sabotage an agreement to either make Obama look bad or pander to the Zionists.

At some point, those other countries might just say, "Screw it, we'll make our own agreement with the Iranians," and just move on without us. Then we have no leverage at all.

 

[orogenicman]

Really? And your evidence that "Iran's army and intelligence units are ALREADY running 4-5 other nations in the region" is? Which nations are they running? Do they sign the checks, deliver the mail, pick up the trash? What, exactly, are they doing in these 4-5 nations? And where is your evidence? Speaking of stupidity...

Is that your argument, that because iranians are not doing civil service work in lebanon, iraq, syria and yemen, they are not in control of the country? So I really did over rate you.

Evidence, dude. Present it or admit that you are making this stuff up (and it isn't even make up shit Thursday, go figure).

 

[JoeB131]

The only realistic alternative is to prevent, by any means necessary Iran's acquisition of atomic bombs.
The Senate has some suggestions for President obama and seeing they have to approve any agreement he negotiates, it would be in his best interest to seek the advice of the Senate majority during negotiations to avoid the embarrassment of having his "great achievement" tossed in the trash when it reaches the Senate floor.

BUT, he will not include the GOP, instead thinking he can sign an agreement by executive order or some such shit. One day he looks like a weak ineffectual pussy, the next he looks like a tin pot dictator. Which is he?

Neither. Past presidents have reached agreements with foreign countries without it being a "treaty". He doesn't really need to go to the Senate to get sanctions lifted, most of those were presidential sanctions. (This is how Reagan didn't get fitted for an orange jump suit when he outright sold WEAPONS to Iran.)

Realistically, Iran will get a bomb sooner or later. There's really not much we can do about it short of setting off World War III. It's better to have Iran integrated back into the global community than to have it be an isolated country of angry people.

Here's hint. We've never gone to war with a country that's had a McDonalds.

 

[rhodescholar]

2. Not really. There are only a small number of countries in that area that possess nuclear bombs and their capabilities are well known.

This is false, the methods scientists use is a catalog of listed materials that countries voluntarily provide the IAEA, if iran has an unlisted stock there is no way to prove it was theirs.

Do we want yet a third war in the Middle East? I do not see any country handing nuclear weaponry off to a proxy because the destruction would effect everyone.

I want to eradicate the regime of iran, not attack the whole country, or even the nuke facilities. I would bomb the government buildings, and the homes of the major officials, and use spec forces to kill/capture them. That regime can not exist any longer, it is a cancerous war mongering terror state whose regime cannot be trusted in any agreement. Peace in the ME is impossible as long as that regime exists.

 

[orogenicman]

No one in their right mind would make that claim and then expect anyone to simply take their word for it. NO ONE. What war have they started? Where are your news reports from the front lines?

There are iranian troops in all of the countries i mentioned, yet we did not see the people of those countries voting to be invaded by iran.

The USSR was in control of 21 other countries during the Cold War, yet no one sane would argue that the populations of those satellites were willing participants in the subversion of their country.

Shit for brains liberals like this rail agains the US for allegedly deposing the iranian PM in '53, or for interfering in central/south american governments in the 70s/'80s, yet they give a pass to iran for conquering four other countries. This is a good example of the complete lack of intelligence on the left.

Since it is not true, certainly not demonstrated by you, that Iran has invaded anyone, much less conquered them, one must asked who you paid to acquire your alleged Rhodes Scholarship.

 

[Coyote]

I want to eradicate the regime of iran, not attack the whole country, or even the nuke facilities. I would bomb the government buildings, and the homes of the major officials, and use spec forces to kill/capture them. That regime can not exist any longer, it is a cancerous war mongering state whose regime cannot be trusted in any agreement. Peace in the ME is impossible as long as that regime exists.

Peace in the ME would be impossible if we did that and we would become the cancerous war mongering state.