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

[JoeB131]

Sanctions were never given a chance in Cuba. Cuba trades with Russia and tourist flock there for vacations.

How much trade do you think they are really doing with Russia, which is dirt poor itself.

Uh, no, Sanctions don't work because PEOPLE DON'T LIKE FOREIGNERS TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Mano 10924470

Iran just declared Baghdad its capital of their empire. #10

When, where and by whom was this declaration made?

 

[Ernie S.]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

 

[Care4all]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

 

[Slyhunter]

H

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?

 

[Care4all]

H

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?

please answer my question first.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Sanctions were never given a chance in Cuba. Cuba trades with Russia and tourist flock there for vacations.

How much trade do you think they are really doing with Russia, which is dirt poor itself.

Uh, no, Sanctions don't work because PEOPLE DON'T LIKE FOREIGNERS TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO.

you mean all those people don't like those foreign Iranian infiltrators telling them what to do either....?

wake up Joe....sanctions are simply a 'softer' form of war against totalitarians....

 

[Slyhunter]

H

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?

please answer my question first.

My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.

 

[Care4all]

H

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?

please answer my question first.

My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.

Have you read the deal, or at least read the parts that have been revealed to us?

If the outcome is just the same, with or without a deal....then why is one measure more harmful than the other?

For me, I subscribe to: keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

It's better for us to have inspectors on the ground, than for us NOT to have them there.....it's better for us to have them turn over what enriched uranium they do have, than it is for us to get none of it from them at all.... it's better for the CIA to get in to their country with their undercover agents or moles....

Hands down, this is the BETTER OPTION of the lousy options there are...

 

[Faun]

H

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?

please answer my question first.

My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.

Completely demented thinking ... which is why conservatives think that way.

Let's say Iran continues to work towards developing nukes .... if there is no deal on the table, the build them but they have not violated any agreements; if there is a deal on the table, they've violated an agreement with 6 world powers who have agreed to use military force to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

 

[Slyhunter]

H

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?

please answer my question first.

My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.

Have you read the deal, or at least read the parts that have been revealed to us?

If the outcome is just the same, with or without a deal....then why is one measure more harmful than the other?

For me, I subscribe to: keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

It's better for us to have inspectors on the ground, than for us NOT to have them there.....it's better for us to have them turn over what enriched uranium they do have, than it is for us to get none of it from them at all.... it's better for the CIA to get in to their country with their undercover agents or moles....

Hands down, this is the BETTER OPTION of the lousy options there are...

It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SlyH 11142177

It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.

How do you propose that "we" replace their leaders?

 

[Billo_Really]

It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.

It's none of your god-damn business who their leaders are.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

SlyH 11141106

My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.

How on earth do you think you know as a matter of fact that a deal doesn't stop them from building a nuclear bomb? If they comply for fifteen years - it will be irrelevant to speculate that they are building a nuclear weapon - if they violate the deal after cutting back on purity and production, their facilities are much more easily targeted for military action than they are today. So what's the point of bombing now or regime change now when it is possible that they actually do comply with the deal and see their economy improve by opening up?

 

[Dot Com]

This isn't going away anytime soon. It will haunt those RWNJ haters for so!e time to come

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[Antares]

This isn't going away anytime soon. It will haunt those RWNJ haters for so!e time to come

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

Yeah much like the "Govt shutdown" did

 

[Ernie S.]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?

 

[Antares]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?

Sowell is not the "right kind" of black man, he can think for himself so the Left ignores him.

 

[Ernie S.]

H

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

how is an agreement that doesnt stop them from getting nukes worth the paper its written on?

please answer my question first.

My question answers your qyestion. A deal that doesnt stop them from making nukes is the same as no deal at all. Its a worthless deal if they can still build nukes.

Have you read the deal, or at least read the parts that have been revealed to us?

If the outcome is just the same, with or without a deal....then why is one measure more harmful than the other?

For me, I subscribe to: keep your friends close and your enemies even closer.

It's better for us to have inspectors on the ground, than for us NOT to have them there.....it's better for us to have them turn over what enriched uranium they do have, than it is for us to get none of it from them at all.... it's better for the CIA to get in to their country with their undercover agents or moles....

Hands down, this is the BETTER OPTION of the lousy options there are...

It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.

It's even better if we replace OUR leaders with ones who will make a good deal

 

[Slyhunter]

SlyH 11142177

It's better that we replace their leaders with those who will make a good deal.

How do you propose that "we" replace their leaders?

Boy we keep running in circles. Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.