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

[Dot Com]

Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I suggest you look up the word taqiyya and what it's usage is in Shia.

Shia is now a "language"?......See folks, we need antie to teach us such things

Lol. Good catch!

Taqqyia is a real term, in Arabic.

It is a very weird principle in Islam, outlined both in the Kuran and in at least 2 volumes of the Hadith, where muslims are allowed to lie in order to acheive their goals, for instance, Jihad.

So, I give Antie credit for at least recognizing a word, in spite of him/her/it not knowing that shia is NOT a language.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.

Particularly these 47 nitwits in the Senate.

 

[Statistikhengst]

We left Europe for a reason.............We are not part of the EU...............and our laws and decisions here are not decided by them or ONE MAN OBAMA under the Constitution.

Really, Beagle? We left Europe? We are not part of the EU?

Belgium
NATO-Brussels, Belgium
SHAPE-Chievres, Belgium

Germany
Ansbach, Germany
Bad Aibling, Germany
Bad Kreuznach, Germany
Bamberg, Germany
Baumholder, Germany
Darmstadt, Germany
Friedberg, Germany
Garmisch, Germany
Geilenkirchen AB, Germany
Giebelstadt, Germany
Grafenwoehr, Germany
Hanau, Germany
Heidelberg, Germany
Hohenfels, Germany
Illesheim, Germany
Kaiserslautern, Germany
Kitzingen, Germany
Mannheim, Germany
Ramstein AB, Germany
Rhein-Main AB, Germany
Schweinfurt, Germany
Spangdahlem AB, Germany
Stuttgart, Germany
US Army Europe, Germany
Vilseck, Germany
Wiesbaden/Mainz, Germany
Wuerzburg, Germany

Greece
NSA Souda Bay, Greece

Iceland
NAS Keflavik, Iceland

Italy
Aviano AB, Italy
Livorno, Italy
NAS Sigonnella, Italy
NSA Gaeta, Italy
NSA La Maddalena, Italy
NSA Naples, Italy
Vicenza, Italy

Netherland
Schinnen, Netherlands

Portugal
Lajes Field, Portugal

Spain
NS Rota, Spain

UK
JMF St. Mawgan, UK
Luke AFB, AZ
RAF Lakenheath, UK
RAF Menwith Hill, UK
RAF Mildenhall, UK
RAF Molesworth, UK
US Naval Activities, London UK

You should see how huge the base is outside of Mannheim, in Käfertal. Pretty neat.
And especially in communities where the bases have been there a long time, Germans just love us Amis. We bring money into the economy, lots of marriages have come out of it, etc.

There are lots of less known massive success stories concerning our military presence in Europe, at least in Germany, as far as I can tell.

I have a number of German friends who were absolutely against the Iraq war, but still have respect and admiration for us. This is a point where many Righties fall on their asses, because they think that a disagreement about something means that someone doesn't like you anymore, you know, like how 3rd graders often think...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.

It really is a damned shame. Even the sacred principle of the water's edge just doesn't mean a damn to Republicans anymore.

And though there are differences, stark differences, to Pelosi's visit to Syria in 2006 (Bush 43 didn't want her to go, she ended up going with an entourage of both Democrats AND Republicans, there was no election going on at that time and also no treaty negotiations), I don't think that Pelosi did the right thing in that case, either.

What we are seeing here is a sort of "one-upmanship" from opposition party to the next opposition party and I ask myself, where will it finally stop?

Especially considering that in terms of a real treaty, surely the Repubs know that there are not enough Democratic votes in the Senate to push ratification of the execution of a treaty through without at least 21 GOP votes. So, they could have just waited (if it is a bona-fide treaty and not a presidential order) and killed it in the Senate and then accused the President of not having included their input into the negotiations, yadayadayada, and that would have been a point of argument that I would have to (reluctantly) agree with. Because that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Had they waited, then the President would have delivered them enough political munition to do just that. But they now ruined that possibility for themselves.

Plus, let's not forget, a number of nations are in on these negotiations, not just the USA and Iran. The GOP made fools out of themselves not just in front of an adversary, but also in front of our allies. A buddy of mine read about this who fiasco in the Berliner Morgenpost and started to laugh, called the 47 "kopflose Hühner" (headless chickens). I got a chuckle out of that one. Oh, and my buddy, he works for the German Bundeswehr....

I also don't generally believe in hanging the results of one election in one country onto the politics of another country, but if Netanyahu's LIKUD loses today, even if just narrowly, I think there are going to be some major repercussions and a lot of finger-pointing, also at the GOP. For Bibi was doing better in polling BEFORE the speech on March 3rd than after the speech, that much is sure.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Asshole, iran have NEVER been in compliance, and continues to not be in compliance.

Only a total moron would even think to enter an agreement with a regime of that nature, or that they'd ever keep their side of the arrangement.

What nuclear issue are they not in compliance with?. There is a one year breakout period from peaceful nuclear activities to success at making a bomb. We get more accurate intelligence on where and what to bomb during that one years time frame with a treaty which we don't without a treaty. So you are for a more dangerous world and less accurate intelligence for bombing. That is the stupidest position of all.

 

[nat4900]

Obama is weak. He is a weak leader who gives into pressure. That is the bottom line. And . . .his idea is stupid.

This has nothing to do with partisanship for me, as I am NOT a republican or a conservative. I am anti death penalty amongst other views. Both of your parties are stupid, if you ask me. They are monopolizing our government and ruining our country!

Well, Chrissy. I actually tend to agree with you (kind of worries me...lol) and I have not been enamored by the democrats during a good portion of my long life......However, when comparing the 2 main parties' platform and behavior, I am left with no choice.

Your antipathy for anything-Obama is something that only you can discern and deal with.....has Obama made mistakes? Lots, no doubt.....but all in all he is a cautious, good leader who does NOT deserve the rabid hatred that has been witnessed.

He got elected on a platform of change, and gotten crucified precisely for addressing and enacting those changes.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability. Period.

Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.

 

[ChrisL]

Obama is weak. He is a weak leader who gives into pressure. That is the bottom line. And . . .his idea is stupid.

This has nothing to do with partisanship for me, as I am NOT a republican or a conservative. I am anti death penalty amongst other views. Both of your parties are stupid, if you ask me. They are monopolizing our government and ruining our country!

Well, Chrissy. I actually tend to agree with you (kind of worries me...lol) and I have not been enamored by the democrats during a good portion of my long life......However, when comparing the 2 main parties' platform and behavior, I am left with no choice.

Your antipathy for anything-Obama is something that only you can discern and deal with.....has Obama made mistakes? Lots, no doubt.....but all in all he is a cautious, good leader who does NOT deserve the rabid hatred that has been witnessed.

He got elected on a platform of change, and gotten crucified precisely for addressing and enacting those changes.

No choice? Let's limit PAC funding for the two major parties that monopolize and manipulate our system. That would give 3rd party candidates a better chance at getting their names recognized and being valid candidates. The way things are set up now, no one can compete with the PAC funding for Dems and Repubs.

 

[ChrisL]

The two main parties do NOT care about this country. It is party FIRST for them, as well as their followers, and that is very apparent to me.

 

[ChrisL]

Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.

It really is a damned shame. Even the sacred principle of the water's edge just doesn't mean a damn to Republicans anymore.

And though there are differences, stark differences, to Pelosi's visit to Syria in 2006 (Bush 43 didn't want her to go, she ended up going with an entourage of both Democrats AND Republicans, there was no election going on at that time and also no treaty negotiations), I don't think that Pelosi did the right thing in that case, either.

What we are seeing here is a sort of "one-upmanship" from opposition party to the next opposition party and I ask myself, where will it finally stop?

Especially considering that in terms of a real treaty, surely the Repubs know that there are not enough Democratic votes in the Senate to push ratification of the execution of a treaty through without at least 21 GOP votes. So, they could have just waited (if it is a bona-fide treaty and not a presidential order) and killed it in the Senate and then accused the President of not having included their input into the negotiations, yadayadayada, and that would have been a point of argument that I would have to (reluctantly) agree with. Because that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Had they waited, then the President would have delivered them enough political munition to do just that. But they now ruined that possibility for themselves.

Plus, let's not forget, a number of nations are in on these negotiations, not just the USA and Iran. The GOP made fools out of themselves not just in front of an adversary, but also in front of our allies. A buddy of mine read about this who fiasco in the Berliner Morgenpost and started to laugh, called the 47 "kopflose Hühner" (headless chickens). I got a chuckle out of that one. Oh, and my buddy, he works for the German Bundeswehr....

I also don't generally believe in hanging the results of one election in one country onto the politics of another country, but if Netanyahu's LIKUD loses today, even if just narrowly, I think there are going to be some major repercussions and a lot of finger-pointing, also at the GOP. For Bibi was doing better in polling BEFORE the speech on March 3rd than after the speech, that much is sure.

The only fools here are the ones who would even contemplate supporting a nuclear Iran. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[ChrisL]

Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.

Particularly these 47 nitwits in the Senate.

At least they are showing that they CARE more about the country than party politics. What do WE get out of a nuclear Iran??? What is the benefit/risk ratio?

 

[nat4900]

In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability. Period.

Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.

Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.

First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.

Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.

 

[bendog]

Repubs never fail to make themselves the proverbial horse's ass of themselves the world over.

It really is a damned shame. Even the sacred principle of the water's edge just doesn't mean a damn to Republicans anymore.

And though there are differences, stark differences, to Pelosi's visit to Syria in 2006 (Bush 43 didn't want her to go, she ended up going with an entourage of both Democrats AND Republicans, there was no election going on at that time and also no treaty negotiations), I don't think that Pelosi did the right thing in that case, either.

What we are seeing here is a sort of "one-upmanship" from opposition party to the next opposition party and I ask myself, where will it finally stop?

Especially considering that in terms of a real treaty, surely the Repubs know that there are not enough Democratic votes in the Senate to push ratification of the execution of a treaty through without at least 21 GOP votes. So, they could have just waited (if it is a bona-fide treaty and not a presidential order) and killed it in the Senate and then accused the President of not having included their input into the negotiations, yadayadayada, and that would have been a point of argument that I would have to (reluctantly) agree with. Because that's the way it's SUPPOSED to work. Had they waited, then the President would have delivered them enough political munition to do just that. But they now ruined that possibility for themselves.

Plus, let's not forget, a number of nations are in on these negotiations, not just the USA and Iran. The GOP made fools out of themselves not just in front of an adversary, but also in front of our allies. A buddy of mine read about this who fiasco in the Berliner Morgenpost and started to laugh, called the 47 "kopflose Hühner" (headless chickens). I got a chuckle out of that one. Oh, and my buddy, he works for the German Bundeswehr....

I also don't generally believe in hanging the results of one election in one country onto the politics of another country, but if Netanyahu's LIKUD loses today, even if just narrowly, I think there are going to be some major repercussions and a lot of finger-pointing, also at the GOP. For Bibi was doing better in polling BEFORE the speech on March 3rd than after the speech, that much is sure.

Joe Klein of Time was on Morning Joe, and I think he made a good pt (even Scarborough agreed, and David Ignatius didn't disagree) that Bibi's speech may actually have helped negotiations in that he plays "the bad cop," and that can be effective in gaining a better bargaining chip. The letter, conversely, empowers the Iran hardliners in the Republican Guard to say "see, they won't really make a deal."

I'm not sure what effect Bibi's speech has on the election. Obviously, he intended to energize his base, who don't like Obama and don't want any peace of any kind, that he was the guy who could stand up against the potus. It may have had that effect, but it also seems to have energized voters who realize Israel cannot afford to antagonize a potus.

Herzog is hardly liberal on Iran or settlements. I really doubt he can put together a coalition that would accept a deal, that he says he favors, based on the one Bill Clinton nearly negotiated. I'm not sure the world would not be better off with Bibi remaining PM, because his "no pale state" pledge is not going to go over well in Europe, and trade sanctions through the UN would be divisive in Israel, and frankly I think the time has passed when the US can broker any deal, and it's time for the EU, UN and sunni nations to forge a consensus on what a deal will be for a Pale state.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability. Period.

Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.

Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.

First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.

Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.

LOL. You plodding clods are predictable.

We KNOW what the Presidunce and his inept present Secretary of State have SAID.

Then, as to your second invalid pointless, your assurance that there's "nothing we can do" is fully expected from you surrender monkeys. It's a false statement, but that's fine. We have come to never expect you to speak truthfully.

 

[bendog]

In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability. Period.

Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.

Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.

First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.

Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.

Actually we probably can keep Iran from getting a working nuke with an agreement and inspections. They've stopped enriching uranium, and the IAEA has access for inspections. Any deal would have to include unacceptable consequences falling on Iran if they re-commenced enrichment.

 

[Faun]

...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here

I just said the same thing - what is your problem.

You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.

To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................

Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.

Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................

If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.

Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.

 

[ChrisL]

In this very thread a couple or a few of our resident laughable lolberals have assumed the position that the President and his negotiations with Iran are silent on permitting Iran to have nuclear capability. Period.

Evidently, our resident laughable lolberals don't even bother to read (much less understand) the news "about" which they spew their chorus of talking point imbecility.

Two perpetual mistakes that your ilk keeps on making....mostly, one would guess, because you cannot avoid the interpretation of "news" as spoon-fed you by FOX and other right wing so-called media.

First, you and most of us, have NO CLEAR idea of what the prospective agreement actually deliniates.

Second, regardless of your constant fits and tantrums, there is NOTHING we can do to avoid Iran from evetually procuring a nuclear weapon.......We could nuke them ourselves, and that (even your perverted mind-set) would deem as unacceptable.

Yes . . . we do, and I posted a link to it earlier in this thread. Maybe you should try reading some of the links provided for you instead of ignoring them and going around blathering.

Edit: Oops, wrong link - corrected.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/15/w...late-obstacles-to-a-deal.html?ref=topics&_r=0

The areas of convergence in the deal circulating in Washington and European capitals include a complex arrangement in which Iran would ship large portions of its stockpiles of uranium out of the country, almost certainly to Russia. In return, the United States and its negotiating partners could allow Iran to keep roughly 6,500 of its centrifuges spinning, rather than the few hundred that were under discussion a year ago.

The number of centrifuges, which may be altered in the final stages of talks, will take on outsize proportions in the public debate here. Opponents of the deal argue that it will leave the Iranians with a latent production capacity, even though the country would have limited amounts of uranium to work with. American officials insist that for at least the first 10 years of a final accord, the mix of fuel and enrichment capacity will leave the United States, Israel and others with at least a year’s worth of warning time if Iran raced to make a bomb’s worth of material — compared to just a few months of warning time today.

But inside the negotiating rooms, there are still major debates about how to phase in the lifting of United Nations, American and European sanctions as Iran complies with the terms. The sanctions standoff underscores a little-discussed but politically volatile issue for the Obama administration: how quickly Iran would see economic and technological benefits from any accord.

A suspension, and ultimate elimination, of the sanctions on oil exports and financial transactions is the key issue for President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and his lead negotiator, Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, if they hope to sell a 10-year or longer limitation on their nuclear activity to Iranian mullahs and military leaders who have opposed the negotiations. As details of the talks leak, they are being used by opponents in Tehran, especially the Revolutionary Guard Corps, which oversees the military side of the nuclear program. They argue that by limiting Iran’s capabilities for so many years, the United States would use an accord to thwart Iran’s emergence as the major power in the Middle East.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

...Our laws are not made by the United Nations, and any agreement with THEM or IRAN is Not LEGALLY BInding here

I just said the same thing - what is your problem.

You were claiming they are the law...................International laws.............but even in the United Nations if they are not ratified BY OUR WHOLE GOVERNMENT, aka THE SENATE, then our country has NEVER OFFICIALLY AGREED TO THESE LAWS......................So WE DON'T HAVE TO HONOR THEM whether the UN likes it our not.

To your other post.............Yes we are part of the UN..........and we have bases all over the world.................and we pay the Lion's Share of their funding..............and we are THEIR POLICE FORCE.....................But we don't have to OBEY THEM as we are still a INDEPENDENT country with individual LAWS and RULES...........and under the Constitution it requires BOTH THE SENATE and THE EXECUTIVE to agree....................

Under the UN and action against Iraq...............We got agreement from Turkey to use their territory to attack from the North.................Their Parlament DISAGREED and we were not allowed to use their land to attack.............Even though their was a POLITICAL AGREEMENT between the Leaders.

Under Clinton.............in Bosnia............we went in under NATO Command...........as we refused to go in under UN Command.................

If an agreement is reached..........without the Senate..........it's NON BINDING.

Technically, we don't have to honor any agreements, even those confirmed by the Senate.

Abiding by one's word has never been a requirement to you lolberals.

 

[Antares]

You can't piss me off, you aren't intelligent enough.

Tell you what, I'm tired of the "personal" attacks when there's much more serious issues......and have the spine to tell your compatriots on here to use a bit less profanity as substitute for substance.

Tell you what ADD something any given conversation, it is you doing the drive by's.