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

[ChrisL]

Ummm ... the FSA didn't even exist before 2011. We're talking about the insurgency we were fighting in Iraq.

So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops? How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq? Plenty.

Yup, I think they want Iraq. They want to control Iraqi oil, of course! It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil, but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty. They are not being threatened by ISIS. They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help." Nobody should want their "help" with anything.

Ulterior motives....sure. We all do. However the entire region is threatened by ISIS. I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives. There are no innocents in this game.

Have you read any of the links I provided? Probably not. Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan. Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that. I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!

Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.

I don't "trust them". But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests. Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.

As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table. But war should never ever be the first or even second or third option. The "horrible conservatives" don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance and from the beginning that has been apparent. The want yet another Mid East war. Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?

Iran has connections with the Syria civil war. Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.

Really now? Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours). And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - so do we.

Taking the side of ISIS? No evidence to support that.

How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse? You don't think so? Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM. So are they lying?

According to WHO?

Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today

Ahmademonjob is not in power. He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power. It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.

I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco. He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.

The liberal thought process: Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb. Fucking insane. I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.

Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs. He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious? I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran. He does NOT. He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.

The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam. Why do you keep asking according to who? According to the mullahs, that's who.

 

[Coyote]

The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:

Afghanistan 2009
(A) Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
(B) Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.

Didn't happen.

Iraq; 2011:
Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.

Iraq 2014
Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President

Didn't happen

Egypt Arab Spring:
Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters. Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.

Didn't happen

Syria:
Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW. Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW. ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them. All Obama's fault - the IS is established. These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .

Didn't happen

Lybia:
About the same as Syria except for Benghazi. Benghazi. Obama went to bed let our people die. He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.

"Please proceed Governor"

So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?

The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB - Be even more afraid.

You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power. DERP. Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.

And again, with the screwed up quoting. Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes? WTF? If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.

Nonsense. The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry. Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.

Sanctions worked to bring them to the table. If you continue, at this point, to ratchet them up you risk driving them away any agreement or potential oversight - and building a bomb in secret.

 

[ChrisL]

Faun 10966335

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when

Iran is more likely but not all that likely to get a bomb if there is no deal. The reason is the 'breakout period of one year' that is being negotiated.

If you don't know what that is I'll let Obama explains it.

.The American president said the best way to ensure that Iran does not develop a nuclear bomb is not through additional sanctions or a military option - but through diplomacy.

“What we've said from the start is by organizing a strong sanctions regime, what we can do is bring Iran to the table," he said. "And by bringing Iran to the table, force them to have a serious negotiation in which we are able to see exactly what's going on inside of Iran.”

The president added that a break-out period of a year - the time Iran would need to make a nuclear weapon, if it decided to do so - would give international monitors a chance to detect any violations, and that Iran could be stopped through military action during that period, if need be.

Obama said Iran should commit to freezing its nuclear program for at least 10 years in order for a successful deal to be reached, and he noted that the chances of reaching such an agreement were still less than 50 percent.

Obama Iran Must Freeze Sensitive Nuclear Activity for At Least a Decade Embassy of the United States

Key paragraph from the remarks :

"The president added that a break-out period of a year - the time Iran would need to make a nuclear weapon, if it decided to do so - would give international monitors a chance to detect any violations, and that Iran could be stopped through military action during that period, if need be.

stopped through military action

stopped through military action

stopped through military action

stopped through military actio

And with the deal the international community will be "able to see exactly what's going on inside of Iran.” As Obama said,

Military targeting will be better known with a deal.

ChrisL has been lying to you that Americans don't agree with making a deal. She's lying because Obama matches the polls that say Americans want a deal and they want military action if Iran breaks the deal.

Uneducated Americans like yourself want a deal because you have no IDEA what you are dealing with. You are ignorant. That's all there is to it.

What is with your repeated sentences in bold? Is that supposed to make some kind of point?

Iran would not let inspectors in before, why do you think they would allow such things now? They will take the materials and stock pile them and hide them. That is what they've done in the past, and that is what they will do now. This is the MOST stupid thing Obama and you liberals have ever done. Once the shit hits the fan, we know exactly WHO is to blame.

 

[ChrisL]

The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:

Afghanistan 2009
(A) Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
(B) Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.

Didn't happen.

Iraq; 2011:
Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.

Iraq 2014
Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President

Didn't happen

Egypt Arab Spring:
Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters. Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.

Didn't happen

Syria:
Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW. Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW. ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them. All Obama's fault - the IS is established. These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .

Didn't happen

Lybia:
About the same as Syria except for Benghazi. Benghazi. Obama went to bed let our people die. He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.

"Please proceed Governor"

So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?

The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB - Be even more afraid.

You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power. DERP. Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.

And again, with the screwed up quoting. Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes? WTF? If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.

Nonsense. The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry. Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.

Sanctions worked to bring them to the table. If you continue, at this point, to ratchet them up you risk driving them away any agreement or potential oversight - and building a bomb in secret.

They've already been doing that. Israeli and American intelligence has said so.

 

[Statistikhengst]

So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops? How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq? Plenty.

Yup, I think they want Iraq. They want to control Iraqi oil, of course! It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil, but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty. They are not being threatened by ISIS. They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help." Nobody should want their "help" with anything.

Ulterior motives....sure. We all do. However the entire region is threatened by ISIS. I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives. There are no innocents in this game.

Have you read any of the links I provided? Probably not. Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan. Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that. I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!

Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.

I don't "trust them". But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests. Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.

As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table. But war should never ever be the first or even second or third option. The "horrible conservatives" don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance and from the beginning that has been apparent. The want yet another Mid East war. Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?

Iran has connections with the Syria civil war. Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.

Really now? Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours). And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - so do we.

Taking the side of ISIS? No evidence to support that.

How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse? You don't think so? Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM. So are they lying?

According to WHO?

Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today

Ahmademonjob is not in power. He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power. It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.

I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco. He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.

The liberal thought process: Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb. Fucking insane. I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.

Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs. He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious? I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran. He does NOT. He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.

The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam. Why do you keep asking according to who? According to the mullahs, that's who.

You are clearly completely off your rocker if you think that our President thinks that a nuclear Iran is a good idea.

You have a lot to learn about the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry.

 

[ChrisL]

You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power. DERP. Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.

And again, with the screwed up quoting. Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes? WTF? If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.

What good is that? Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke. They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!

There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.

There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions. We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well. You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year? Yes, there are options.

How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?

I've got one word, CHINA. Do you realize we give China aid money. We can threaten to cut them off, a kind of sanctioning of our own.

 

[Coyote]

So who was funding, arming, training and driving the shia militias in iraq to attack US troops? How many times were iranian troops captured in iraq? Plenty.

Yup, I think they want Iraq. They want to control Iraqi oil, of course! It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil, but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty. They are not being threatened by ISIS. They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help." Nobody should want their "help" with anything.

Ulterior motives....sure. We all do. However the entire region is threatened by ISIS. I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives. There are no innocents in this game.

Have you read any of the links I provided? Probably not. Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan. Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that. I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!

Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.

I don't "trust them". But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests. Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.

As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table. But war should never ever be the first or even second or third option. The "horrible conservatives" don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance and from the beginning that has been apparent. The want yet another Mid East war. Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?

Iran has connections with the Syria civil war. Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.

Really now? Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours). And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - so do we.

Taking the side of ISIS? No evidence to support that.

How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse? You don't think so? Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM. So are they lying?

According to WHO?

Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today

Ahmademonjob is not in power. He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power. It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.

I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco. He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.

He doesn't.

The liberal thought process: Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb. Fucking insane. I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.

Oh really now. Do you think it's that simplistic?

Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs. He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious? I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran. He does NOT. He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.

Ahmademonjob was a nut, and he did not follow directions too well, which is why he is no longer president. I already said the president in Iran doesn't hold much power - or did you miss that? He holds some power, but not as much as our president.

The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam. Why do you keep asking according to who? According to the mullahs, that's who.

They believe in the 12th Imam. Just like Christians believe in the apocolypse. That doesn't mean they are in a hurry to end the world.

 

[ChrisL]

Yup, I think they want Iraq. They want to control Iraqi oil, of course! It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil, but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty. They are not being threatened by ISIS. They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help." Nobody should want their "help" with anything.

Ulterior motives....sure. We all do. However the entire region is threatened by ISIS. I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives. There are no innocents in this game.

Have you read any of the links I provided? Probably not. Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan. Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that. I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!

Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.

I don't "trust them". But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests. Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.

As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table. But war should never ever be the first or even second or third option. The "horrible conservatives" don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance and from the beginning that has been apparent. The want yet another Mid East war. Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?

Iran has connections with the Syria civil war. Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.

Really now? Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours). And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - so do we.

Taking the side of ISIS? No evidence to support that.

How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse? You don't think so? Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM. So are they lying?

According to WHO?

Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today

Ahmademonjob is not in power. He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power. It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.

I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco. He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.

The liberal thought process: Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb. Fucking insane. I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.

Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs. He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious? I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran. He does NOT. He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.

The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam. Why do you keep asking according to who? According to the mullahs, that's who.

You are clearly completely off your rocker if you think that our President thinks that a nuclear Iran is a good idea.

You have a lot to learn about the difference between nuclear energy and nuclear weaponry.

No, I think you do . . .

They have the know-how. All they need is the materials!!

Nuclear Power Education - Nuclear Weapons Proliferation

 

[Coyote]

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.

What good is that? Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke. They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!

There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.

There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions. We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well. You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year? Yes, there are options.

How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?

I've got one word, CHINA. Do you realize we give China aid money. We can threaten to cut them off, a kind of sanctioning of our own.

uh....do you realize how much of our debt China holds?

 

[rhodescholar]

You just can't get enough war. The disaster of Iraq taught you nothing.

What was it supposed to "teach" me asshole, I was against that war. I stated at the time, as I do now, that iran was and is the far greater threat.

 

[Coyote]

You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power. DERP. Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.

And again, with the screwed up quoting. Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes? WTF? If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.

What good is that? Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke. They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!

There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.

There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions. We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well. You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year? Yes, there are options.

How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?

Yes...how well...not many answers out there.

 

[Faun]

I'm telling you, I am grateful for those senators for writing that letter. I hope they fight Obama ALL THE WAY on this.

Too bad they don't fight our enemies with such conviction.

 

[ChrisL]

Yup, I think they want Iraq. They want to control Iraqi oil, of course! It is unbelievable to me that these same people will say such things about the US going after oil, but they refuse to believe that Iran would do the same, and use tricky methods (which they are GOOD at) to do so, along with propaganda and dishonesty. They are not being threatened by ISIS. They have ulterior motives for wanting to "help." Nobody should want their "help" with anything.

Ulterior motives....sure. We all do. However the entire region is threatened by ISIS. I don't think people refuse to believe Iran doesn't have ulterior motives. There are no innocents in this game.

Have you read any of the links I provided? Probably not. Anyhow, they outline perfectly that Iran has a plan. Of course, none of you liberals will admit to that. I think some of you trust Iran mullahs more than the "horrible conservatives" who are your own countrymen!!!

Our that "horrible liberal" who is our elected president.

I don't "trust them". But I DO trust our president - who is OUR elected leader - to negotiate the best possible deal for OUR interests. Unlike the "horrible conservatives" who's main agenda has been, from Obama's election, to prevent any sort of accomplishment.

As a "horrible liberal" I support our President's effort and, as he has stated - nothing is off the table. But war should never ever be the first or even second or third option. The "horrible conservatives" don't want to allow diplomacy and negotiations a chance and from the beginning that has been apparent. The want yet another Mid East war. Haven't we learned anything from the mess we made of Iraq, which I might add removed the main counter-balance to Iran's regional ambitions?

Iran has connections with the Syria civil war. Iran will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals, and that happens to be ISIS now.

Really now? Agree, they do have connections with the Syrian civil war - it's in their backyard (not ours). And yes, they will take the side of whomever they think will be most advantageous to their goals - helllllloooo - so do we.

Taking the side of ISIS? No evidence to support that.

How can you deny that the mullahs want an apocalypse? You don't think so? Well, that is exactly what they want according to THEM. So are they lying?

According to WHO?

Your link - at least the one I read was The 12th Imam The Mahdi and Iran Today

Ahmademonjob is not in power. He is one individual and, even as elected president - he doesn't have much power. It's rather vague interview on beliefs - not actions.

I don't trust him at ALL after this fiasco. He is one ridiculous moron if he thinks a nuclear Iran is a good idea.

He doesn't.

The liberal thought process: Give Iran nukes so they won't develop a bomb. Fucking insane. I wonder if some of you are as insane sometimes.

Oh really now. Do you think it's that simplistic?

Ahamadinejab followed directions from the mullahs. He didn't make any decisions . . . are you serious? I don't think you know what you're talking about if you think the "president" holds any power in Iran. He does NOT. He only follows strict orders of the mullahs who tell him exactly what to say and do.

Ahmademonjob was a nut, and he did not follow directions too well, which is why he is no longer president. I already said the president in Iran doesn't hold much power - or did you miss that? He holds some power, but not as much as our president.

The country is run by the mullahs, and they believe in the 12th Imam. Why do you keep asking according to who? According to the mullahs, that's who.

They believe in the 12th Imam. Just like Christians believe in the apocolypse. That doesn't mean they are in a hurry to end the world.

You are being incredibly ignorant and naive. I don't know what else I can say to convince you that you are sooooo wrong. The mullahs are believers in the 12th disciple. They believe that in order to pave the way for the 12th Imam, there must be destruction, an apocalyptic scenario.

Why will do you keep denying this? You want to believe it isn't true? Well, I'm sorry, but it is true. It comes from their own mouths. Ahmadinejab would have been dead if he went against the mullahs. NOBODY goes against the mullahs in Iran. I really don't know what else I can do. You all will just keep your heads buried in the sand and deny, deny, deny.

IRANIAN DEFENSE MINISTER WAR WITH ISRAEL MEANS TWELFTH IMAM IS COMING Joel C. Rosenberg s Blog

An apocalyptic, genocidal death cult is in power in Iran. The mullahs in Tehran believe we are living in the end of days and that the way to hasten the coming of their so-called Islamic messiah known as the Twelfth Imam is to annihilate Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it. I’ve been writing and speaking about this for years, trying to help the West understand how a fanatical version of Shia End Times theology is driving Iranian foreign policy. Now we have fresh evidence that this is not fiction; it is all too true.

“For the first time, Iran’s highest-ranking military official has tied the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah to the regime being prepared to go to a war based on ideology,”notes Reza Kahlili, the former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps officer turned spy for the CIA. “‘With having the treasure of the Holy Defense, Valayat (Guardianship of the Jurist) and martyrs, we are ready for a big war,’ Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said, according to Mashregh news, which is run by the Revolutionary Guards. ‘Of course this confrontation has always continued; however, since we are in the era of The Coming, this war will be a significant war.’ Shi’ites believe that at the end of time great wars will take place, and Imam Mahdi, the Shi’ites’ 12th imam, will reappear and kill all the infidels, raising the flag of Islam in all corners of the world.”

Kahlili, as you may recall, is now an American citizen and is the author of a book about his life in the CIA. Last year, in an article Reza published on his blog and sent out around the world, he renounced Islam and explained that he had become a follower of Jesus Christ. Reza’s latest article is important and I encourage you to read the full version. You should also watch the video at the end of the article that is an excerpt from an Iranian documentary called “The Coming.” It explains how recent geopolitical events are, in the view of Shia eschatology experts, signs that we are living in the last days and that the Twelfth Imam or “Mahdi” is coming to earth at any moment to establish a global Islamic kingdom or “caliphate” to rule the world.

 

[boedicca]

The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:

Afghanistan 2009
(A) Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
(B) Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.

Didn't happen.

Iraq; 2011:
Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.

Iraq 2014
Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President

Didn't happen

Egypt Arab Spring:
Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters. Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.

Didn't happen

Syria:
Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW. Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW. ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them. All Obama's fault - the IS is established. These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .

Didn't happen

Lybia:
About the same as Syria except for Benghazi. Benghazi. Obama went to bed let our people die. He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.

"Please proceed Governor"

So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?

The point is that Iran does not care if ISIS destroys any other ME country. ..... Once the ME is in complete chaos, Iran will take advantage of that.

Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB - Be even more afraid.

You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power. DERP. Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.

And again, with the screwed up quoting. Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes? WTF? If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.

Nonsense. The best course of action at this point involves severe economic sanctions towards Iran and increased development of our own domestic oil industry. Cheap oil causing damage to the Iranian economy could be an impetus to a revolution against the Mullahs...as long as Obama doesn't fuck it up next time.

There have been sanctions on Iran for 35 years so far. How many more years until that revolution happens? What are the chances they develop a nuke before then?

Were you in a medically induced coma in 2009, or just spaced out on drugs?

 

[ChrisL]

I'm telling you, I am grateful for those senators for writing that letter. I hope they fight Obama ALL THE WAY on this.

Too bad they don't fight our enemies with such conviction.

Iran is our enemy.

 

[ChrisL]

Now, I've provided plenty of links to articles and many valid sources with people in the know about Iran. I'm done here now because it is up to you whether you want to believe it or not. Obviously, you all are going to think what you want and deny the ugly truth. Later!

 

[rhodescholar]

Once Israel (through, I believe, the surreptitious help from South Africa) managed to amass 200 nukes, it was just a matter of time that another ME country, with the means and treasury, would pursue the same course.
We may be able (regardless of the whining right wingers) to postpone Iran's nuclear ambitions, but we will have to come to terms that unless Israel disarms its nukes, Iran will also want such destructive weaponry.

This is why I ignore most of yours and the other low IQ, moron liberals' posts.

First, it was France and Norway who helped construct Israel's nuclear program, and they achieved it over 50 years ago. Given that it was half a century ago, if Israel's acquisition of nukes was going to start an arms race, it would have happened long ago. Try the facts on for a change moron, they might fit.

 

[Faun]

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.

What good is that? Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke. They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!

There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.

There is a way to stop them, with heavy sanctions. We threaten those countries who refuse to participate with sanctions as well. You are aware that we give pretty much ALL of those countries money every year? Yes, there are options.

How well did sanctions work in preventing North Korea from building nukes?

I've got one word, CHINA. Do you realize we give China aid money. We can threaten to cut them off, a kind of sanctioning of our own.

And the connection to NK building nukes despite sanctions ... is ... ?

 

[Coyote]

I'm telling you, I am grateful for those senators for writing that letter. I hope they fight Obama ALL THE WAY on this.

Too bad they don't fight our enemies with such conviction.

Iran is our enemy.

What have they done to us?

 

[orogenicman]

I thought the dominant right-winger Obama-hater absurd and dishonest version of ME events was that:

Afghanistan 2009
(A) Obama didn't send enough troops to Afghanistan to pull Bush's fiasco there out of the jaws of defeat.
(B) Obama set a target date for withdrawal of surge troops giving the enemy time to wait us out and then take over the whole country and enable AL Qaeda & Taliban to overthrow Pakistan & sieze the nukes and the world would be destroyed.

Didn't happen.

Iraq; 2011:
Needlessly and recklessly Pulled troops out when Iraq wasn't ready which would lead to all of Iraq being taken over by terrorists thus intentionally squandering the great Bush victory after the 2003,caused extreme violence and then by 2008' reducing that violence 80% from 2006 levels.

Iraq 2014
Then of course Daesh emerges capturing large parts of Sunni Iraq and it's all Obama's fault for pulling troops out and not forcing Iraq to allow them to stay on US terms. Then of course Baghdad and all of Iraq's oil (for the mid-terms) was to fall into terrorist hands all because 10,000 troops were not forced to stay in Iraq by a soft on terrorist President

Didn't happen

Egypt Arab Spring:
Depending on what day it was Obama was not supporting the protesters. Or not supporting the government then was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood who bought Morsi the Presidency - then Obama was not supporting the protestors or the military or he's supporting the military by not calling it a coup when Morsi was arrested, but then Obama supported the MB too much or the protesters too much or too little or the Army and Al SIsi too much or too little. All this chaos was all Obama's fault and the Nile was to flow with blood of civil war and the peace treaty with Israel was to be in tatters and Armageddon was on the way.

Didn't happen

Syria:
Obama led from behind - led too much. Shoulda armed the rebels. Should not have armed the rebels. The red Line on CW. Obama was a fool to think Assad would actually give up his tons of CW. ISIS splits from Al Qaeda and go bonkers barbaric nutzo so much that Al Qaeda disavowed them. All Obama's fault - the IS is established. These terrorists (without an Air Force???) are going to over-run the entire Middle East - destroy Israel too - Obama does nothing .

Didn't happen

Lybia:
About the same as Syria except for Benghazi. Benghazi. Obama went to bed let our people die. He's on the side of terrorists. Blamed a movie. Won't call them terrorists.

"Please proceed Governor"

So ChrisL are you changing the narrative from "all that is Obama's fault" to its all Iran's fault?

Or is it still all Obama's fault? And he's giving them the BOMB - Be even more afraid.

You moron, at no time did I say it was all Obama's fault. I said Obama is making a very bad decision to make any kind of deal with Iran regarding nuclear power. DERP. Keep changing the subject and making shit up because you don't have an argument, though.

And again, with the screwed up quoting. Aren't you the one I specifically asked yesterday to fix your quotes? WTF? If you can't handle quoting then you probably shouldn't be posting.

Deal or no deal, Iran is getting a bomb. It's just a matter of when. The best deterrent is to let them know we have 100 nukes aimed at them in case they ever get the idea to do something stupid.

What good is that? Iran knows we are weak and would never light off a nuke. They might be insane but they sure aren't stupid!

There is no way they believe we would not fire nukes at them if they launched one or more at us. MADD is the only possible deterrent. There is no way of preventing them from obtaining nukes. The only solution is to be crystal clear that they will not be the ones to launch the last missile.

They probably wouldn't have the capabilities to strike at the United States. Instead they will hit Israel, Iraq, and all of the other countries that surround them. You are aware that none of the Arab countries like Iran? It's because Iranians are Persians. WTF that matters, I don't have any clue, but that's a fact. Iran hates everyone and everyone hates Iran.

Right, and let all that fallout land, among other places downwind, in Iran. We know it, and so do they. Syria is an Arab country, and they are Iran's sole ally in the ME. Iranians speak Farsi, but they are not Persians. Persia doesn't exist.