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

[cnm]

Looked like the killing fields to me, sploogy.

I think I'll not take your word for it.

Invincible ignorance is, as ever, invincible.

 

[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.

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

It's always been mine, didn't you know? And if I ruled the world, we wouldn't have these problems.

 

[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.

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.

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

Yes, and why is that?

 

[ChrisL]

These are a people who don't hesitate to hang people from cranes for being homosexuals and stone women to death. I wonder if anyone remembers Neda?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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."

Spot On!!! Well said and there can be no rebuttal (thus expect to be called names).

 

[orogenicman]

Obama did what the American people wanted him to do- get our boys out of Iraq.

Then in turn launched the bombing of Libya, invaded Pakistan to kill OBL, launched drone strikes in Yemen, sent troops back to Iraq to combat ISIS, and sent some of our personnel to Sudan and Uganda.

Apparently he's just as bad as his predecessor.

Erm, so you think he should have let Osama Bin Laden live - like Bush did?

He wouldn't have done it had there not been an election to win.

He was killed on May 2, 2011. So, erm, what election do you suppose there was to win?

 

[cnm]

We are not at war. There was no declaration. Wars are declared against sovereign states, dude. ISIS is not a sovereign state.

Well not quite, the US manages to declare war against nouns.

 

[orogenicman]

These are a people who don't hesitate to hang people from cranes for being homosexuals and stone women to death. I wonder if anyone remembers Neda?

No one denies that Iran is rule by evil men. That is not the issue here. But they are not stupid. The issue is how to keep them from getting nukes. Bomb them into the stone age (which would never work), sent in ground troops (we saw how well that worked for Saddam Hussein), or try to get them to the table and work out a verifiable agreement with the UNSC? You tell me.

 

[cnm]

[...] (Reader... LOL! Can you imagine the depths of depravity, wherein allowing the same people that flew OCCUPIED JUMBO JETS INTO OCCUPIED SKY SCRAPERS, to acquire NUCLEAR WEAPONS, to be a potential "Path to Peace"? ROFLMNAO

You can NOT make this crap UP! If a WEEK AGO you had accused that same person of BELIEVING THAT... they would have trolled the thread for DAYS denying and 'reported' you to management for having committed libel against 'em.)

Can't go wrong with geo-political knowledge like that.

 

[ChrisL]

These are a people who don't hesitate to hang people from cranes for being homosexuals and stone women to death. I wonder if anyone remembers Neda?

No one denies that Iran is rule by evil men. That is not the issue here. But they are not stupid. The issue is how to keep them from getting nukes. Bomb them into the stone age (which would never work), sent in ground troops (we saw how well that worked for Saddam Hussein), or try to get them to the table and work out a verifiable agreement with the UNSC? You tell me.

How about tell them no. No, they cannot be trusted with any kind of nuclear technology. The mullahs run things in Iran, and they are known to be religious fanatics who believe in the return of the 12th disciple. It would be crazy to give them any such okay, IMO. Just crazy. They already, as it stands now, threaten and make things difficult for others. Imagine what kind of trouble they could cause? They are just too much in the dark ages and superstitious to trust.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are not at war. There was no declaration. Wars are declared against sovereign states, dude. ISIS is not a sovereign state.

Well not quite, the US manages to declare war against nouns.

True, and it seems drugs and terrorism have won. Poverty still exists as do Superfund Sites waiting for the Congress to fund their cleanup. Until we begin to elect adults to The Congress we will continue to give lip service to serious issues, and make hysterical appearances on TV to attack the character of others on silly issues like e-mails and sexual peccadilloes.

 

[cnm]

TEN fucking years of negotiations? How many more are needed, until the sun exhausts its hydrogen? Or until iran has conquered the parts of the mideast it does not control now?

It would be a bit quicker if the US would continue removing Iran's enemies. You've done Iraq, maybe Saudi next?

 

[cnm]

Really, when has the MSM been easy on Republicans.

The leading cable channel and the largest circulation newspaper seem to manage.

 

[orogenicman]

These are a people who don't hesitate to hang people from cranes for being homosexuals and stone women to death. I wonder if anyone remembers Neda?

No one denies that Iran is rule by evil men. That is not the issue here. But they are not stupid. The issue is how to keep them from getting nukes. Bomb them into the stone age (which would never work), sent in ground troops (we saw how well that worked for Saddam Hussein), or try to get them to the table and work out a verifiable agreement with the UNSC? You tell me.

How about tell them no. No, they cannot be trusted with any kind of nuclear technology. The mullahs run things in Iran, and they are known to be religious fanatics who believe in the return of the 12th disciple. It would be crazy to give them any such okay, IMO. Just crazy. They already, as it stands now, threaten and make things difficult for others. Imagine what kind of trouble they could cause? They are just too much in the dark ages and superstitious to trust.

Iran has had nuclear technology since the 1970s. We gave it to them (when a Republican was president, in fact). They are members of the NNPT. And as along as they comply with that treaty, they have every right to the technology. That is entirely what this is about.

 

[cnm]

Uh, first off, it was iran who was declaring death to america for decades, not the other way around. It was iran murdering 241 US marines and 85 diplomats in beirut in 1983, not the other way around. It was iran who has conquered lebanon, iraq, syria, yemen, bahrain, gaza and is trying to do the same in morocco, not the US. It is iran's cancerous regime of terrorist filth that has created ISIS, and has helped assad slaughter 250K people there, not the US.

McCain's intent is to wipe that diseased regime off the map, not murder every iranian - that is not the case with iran's scumbag government.

And all because the US overthrew its demoratically elected government and installed a puppet regime. Those Iranians have no sense of proportion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

TEN fucking years of negotiations? How many more are needed, until the sun exhausts its hydrogen? Or until iran has conquered the parts of the mideast it does not control now?

It would be a bit quicker if the US would continue removing Iran's enemies. You've done Iraq, maybe Saudi next?

Well we've got a LOT of work to do, with the Left having placed the Middle east in the hands of Islamic terrorists.

But I do think you've a good point and we probably should start the next chapter in Iran. Crystalizing Tehran... carbon shadows and the like... then set up a world wide ban of Islam.

But only because Islam is the embodiment of pure evil.

 

[cnm]

If they try to make "deals" with Iran that allows them to have any type of nuclear power, then I would hope so. This is just . . . pure madness.

The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If they try to make "deals" with Iran that allows them to have any type of nuclear power, then I would hope so. This is just . . . pure madness.

The madness is to think the US has any say in how another country regulates its affairs. Look where it's got you.

Oh but they want to play World Police, and then get pissed when someone shoots back...

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Just like our C in C. He'll just threaten to hit Iran with a Nerf stick and call it a deal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

My oh my, look how angry you are.