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

[occupied]

Democrat's
new friends

My friends are the members of the United States armed forces and I do not want to waste their lives and limbs in another war meant only to enrich the war profiteers and give you warhawks tiny little erections.

"members of the United States armed forces "
what units ?

??????

 

[Lakhota]

Will Tehran Tommy make a run for president?

 

[occupied]

Tehran Tom! Palling around with terrorists.

From being all butt hurt someone questions obies love of country to attacking an actual war vet. You people really are some serious turds.

Indeed, the Democrat's measure of patriotism has been lowered to the bar of
how much one supports Papa Obama in his unconstitutional efforts

They have gone from a political party to a cult

Bullshit, there is nothing unconstitutional going on here, just a bunch of assholes who are scared Obama may rob them of justification for another useless war. Why do you want a war so badly?

You're so confused you used yesterdays DNC talking point.

I'm anti-war everyday of the week.

 

[Neotrotsky]

Democrat's
new friends

My friends are the members of the United States armed forces and I do not want to waste their lives and limbs in another war meant only to enrich the war profiteers and give you warhawks tiny little erections.

"members of the United States armed forces "
what units ?

??????

What part of the military ?

 

[occupied]

What part of the military ?

The part you want to send to their deaths.

 

[Neotrotsky]

So you lied

got it

 

[occupied]

So you lied

got it

Eat shit warhawk, be clear with your point or shove it up your ass.

 

[Neotrotsky]

My point was clear.
It was a friendly question.

However, your reaction makes questions on your claims
to be reasonable

No matter how one tries to spin it
Giving Iran the ability to get more uranium
is not a path to peace

good luck trying to sell that one


Caveat emptor , indeed

 

[occupied]

My point was clear.
It was friendly question.

However, your reaction makes questions on your claims
to be reasonable

No matter how one tries to spin it
Giving Iran the ability to get more uranium
is not a path to peace

good luck trying to sell that one

Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Speaking of ODS, where is CrusaderFrank ?

Probaton was revoked, he was caught smelling the bicycle seats at the elementary school again.

 

[nat4900]

[
Bullshit, there is nothing unconstitutional going on here, just a bunch of assholes who are scared Obama may rob them of justification for another useless war. Why do you want a war so badly?[/QUOTE]

The biggest fear for those right wingers in congress is a deal with Iran that may win for Obama yet another Nobel.........as far as these dimwitted right wingers on this thread.....well, they're just clueless and full of hate for a president a bit too dark-skinned for their delicate "sensibilities."

 

[rhodescholar]

Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.

Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.

Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:

Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):

"While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."

 

[Wry Catcher]

Why do I not want the Republicans to start another war?

Why didn't you get mad when Democrats started three of them? Where's your outrage when we invade the airspace of other nations to drone the shit out of someone? Where are you while we bomb ISIS into smithereens?

Big newsflash pal, we're already at war. The moment that first bomb hits home, that's war.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall take flack from both sides."
Anon

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing - Edmund Burke

I wouldn't characterize McConnell or Boehner as good men, but they do nothing very very well.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Wow that's damn near treasonous. Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy. But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.

We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

And the alternative is ...?

 

[ChrisL]

Wow that's damn near treasonous. Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy. But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.

We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

And the alternative is ...?

There doesn't have to be an alternative. Why does there have to be an alternative? We could just ignore Iran, at least until they, like many other ME countries, decide to join us here in modern times. A lot of us tire of their savage behaviors.

 

[occupied]

Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.

Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.

Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:

Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):

"While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."

TLDR. The same sort of people who said Saddam had a weapons program capable of striking at Israel and Europe are telling us much the same shit about Iran, excuse me for my skepticism, I didn't fall for it the first time and I damned sure am not going to fall for it again. I would much rather try something more cool-headed that does not cost a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and makes things worse. You people bitch about what everything costs except War, when it comes to that it's "Damned the deficit and roll the money presses."

 

[Wry Catcher]

Really Who’s closer to having committed treason, a guy who puts out a press release stating basic constitutional divisions of power
or a guy who’s determined to give a terrorist state known for proclaiming “death to America” a 10-year path to uranium enrichment?

If you're not a complete idiot (you be the judge) how would you compare the chants "death to America"....to ..."bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran...." ???

Just asking........

the same

as how A couple of weeks ago, it was beyond the pale of decency to ask if Obama loves America,
but today it's fine to call 47 Republican senators traitors.

SEDITION - "conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch." GOP Senators must wear flag pins, otherwise no one would guess they were patriots, because they are not.

 

[ChrisL]

Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.

Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.

Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:

Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):

"While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."

TLDR. The same sort of people who said Saddam had a weapons program capable of striking at Israel and Europe are telling us much the same shit about Iran, excuse me for my skepticism, I didn't fall for it the first time and I damned sure am not going to fall for it again. I would much rather try something more cool-headed that does not cost a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and makes things worse. You people bitch about what everything costs except War, when it comes to that it's "Damned the deficit and roll the money presses."

Not approving a nuclear Iran is NOT going to war. Only a fool would endorse the idea that Iran should have nuclear power. It's idiotic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Having a fucking war is certainly no path to peace. Look at how peaceful Iraq is these days.

Yes, because pacifism is such a winning strategy...NOT.

Back to the adult section, here's a great read from someone informed a lot better than the far left, anti-war, obama-loving trash here:

Michael Young in The Daily Star (Lebanon):

"While Netanyahu's proposals for how to strengthen the nuclear accord are not likely to be implemented, two issues he raised cannot be readily ignored by President Barack Obama: How a deal might enhance Iran's regional influence; and whether regional wariness with a deal could spur nuclear proliferation. Iran's regional role is an issue that the U.S. has strenuously, and foolishly, sought to separate from the nuclear discussions. This has alarmed the Gulf states - and now Israel - who fear that a lifting of sanctions on Iran and a rapprochement with the U.S. would facilitate Iranian expansionism. The Arab states understand that the implications of a nuclear accord are mainly political. Having signed a long-awaited arrangement with Tehran, the U.S. is unlikely to turn around and enter into new conflicts to prevent it from widening its reach in the Arab world. Indeed, there are signs that the Obama administration would do precisely the contrary. Obama, in a letter last October to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, effectively recognized Iran's role in Syria by reassuring him that coalition airstrikes against ISIS would not target Bashar Assad's forces. Moreover, by affirming the parallel interests of the U.S. and Iran in combating ISIS, Obama defined a basis for regional cooperation with Tehran... The questions [Netanyahu] raised are the same ones that many Arab states have, and to which Obama has offered no answers. Iranian influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian territories and now Yemen, is very real, and Tehran has spent years building it up, patiently and deliberately. Obama has explained his Iran policy poorly, and there is a growing sense that this has been intentional. Why? Because Obama's true ambition is to reduce America's role in the Middle East, and, to quote analyst Tony Badran, leave in its place 'a new security structure, of which Iran is a principal pillar.' Because such a scheme is bound to anger U.S. allies in the region, Obama has concealed his true intentions... The Israeli prime minister is correct about one thing: If the Arabs feel threatened by an Iran that, ultimately, has the means of going nuclear, they will respond in kind by trying to develop their own nuclear capability. This would generate considerable instability and defeat the purpose of a nuclear agreement now... The reality is that Obama is deeply distrusted in the Arab world. He is not a man who communicates much with Arab leaders or societies. His aversion to the region's problems is palpable. Nor is Obama a president who immerses himself in the Middle East's details. The extent of this was best illustrated by the fact that he never considered appointing an envoy to coordinate with regional allies over America's position in the nuclear talks. Obama may get his deal with Iran, but he has prepared the terrain so carelessly that the consequences may be quite damaging. Iran is a rising power in a region where Arab states are disintegrating. Agreeing with Iran, if that happens, will be the easy part. Much tougher will be leaving in place a stable regional order. And given Obama's performance until now, no one is wagering much that the U.S. will succeed in that."

TLDR. The same sort of people who said Saddam had a weapons program capable of striking at Israel and Europe are telling us much the same shit about Iran, excuse me for my skepticism, I didn't fall for it the first time and I damned sure am not going to fall for it again. I would much rather try something more cool-headed that does not cost a trillion dollars, thousands of American lives and makes things worse. You people bitch about what everything costs except War, when it comes to that it's "Damned the deficit and roll the money presses."

Not approving a nuclear Iran is NOT going to war. Only a fool would endorse the idea that Iran should have nuclear power. It's idiotic.

Didn't know you were the ruler of the world. When did you get that title?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wow that's damn near treasonous. Interfering in the most important negotiation our country is facing in a way that benefits the enemy. But that's the GOP for you, politics before America.

We shouldn't negotiate with terrorists.

And the alternative is ...?

There doesn't have to be an alternative. Why does there have to be an alternative? We could just ignore Iran, at least until they, like many other ME countries, decide to join us here in modern times. A lot of us tire of their savage behaviors.

Because the issue doesn't involve just the United States but other countries in the context of international talks.

It's this sort of ignorance and simplistic naivete that's the problem.