We shut down WHAT?

[owebo]

I have no doubt the Republicans would have used them too. Don't try and get out of it.

We used them to save American lives. Do not forget about Japanese atrocities in its occupied territories. Also, if there was no Pearl Harbor Attack, there would have been no a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Don't start none if you don't want none.

I'm not stating that the US didn't have reasons to drop the bomb, it's quite a good debate topic actually because there are so many pros and cons to it, so many ifs and buts too.

The point being that perhaps Iran would save lives with them too. With nukes the Iranians would be invaded by the US, they probably wouldn't get sanctions against them once they'd made them either, how many people have died because of these sanctions?

Lots of pros and cons too.

Remember, all those countries that want nukes are anti-America, all those that got them are pro-American, like India and Pakistan (I'm talking recent history here, ie, not the USSR, China, Israel etc).

Iran is a state sponsor of terror that would give nukes to terrorist.

So the US might be too. I mean, it certainly sponsors terrorism. It sponsored the downfall of Hugo Chavez, and failed, it supplied arms to countless groups around the world. That is doesn't seem to have given nukes might be for a reason, and you get the feeling Iran wouldn't give them for the same reasons.

Iran wants nukes for one reason. To stop the US being able to invade.

Sure, that dastardly media, you know, the one you don't like and tells lies all the time? Well, they're pretty big on making the stories that the rich people want you to hear. Like negative ones for Iran and not so negative ones for friendly Saudi Arabia (Another sponsor of terror that gives money and weapons to groups)

Hugo Chavez was a communist dictator and a threat. Iran is a state sponsor of terror that want to get a nuke device inside Israel and detonate it. What terrorist groups does the United States sponsor?

Obama sponsored the Muslim brotherhood.....like Iran, he wants to destroy Israel too....

 

[Bush92]

And especially someone from the party that used them...in fact why should anyone in this country listen to the only party that ever used them and then blames the rest of us for it?

I have no doubt the Republicans would have used them too. Don't try and get out of it.

We used them to save American lives. Do not forget about Japanese atrocities in its occupied territories. Also, if there was no Pearl Harbor Attack, there would have been no a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Don't start none if you don't want none.

I'm not stating that the US didn't have reasons to drop the bomb, it's quite a good debate topic actually because there are so many pros and cons to it, so many ifs and buts too.

The point being that perhaps Iran would save lives with them too. With nukes the Iranians would be invaded by the US, they probably wouldn't get sanctions against them once they'd made them either, how many people have died because of these sanctions?

Lots of pros and cons too.

Remember, all those countries that want nukes are anti-America, all those that got them are pro-American, like India and Pakistan (I'm talking recent history here, ie, not the USSR, China, Israel etc).

Iran is a state sponsor of terror that would give nukes to terrorist.

So the US might be too. I mean, it certainly sponsors terrorism. It sponsored the downfall of Hugo Chavez, and failed, it supplied arms to countless groups around the world. That is doesn't seem to have given nukes might be for a reason, and you get the feeling Iran wouldn't give them for the same reasons.

Iran wants nukes for one reason. To stop the US being able to invade.

Sure, that dastardly media, you know, the one you don't like and tells lies all the time? Well, they're pretty big on making the stories that the rich people want you to hear. Like negative ones for Iran and not so negative ones for friendly Saudi Arabia (Another sponsor of terror that gives money and weapons to groups)

When has US stated intent or even put out any inclination that it wants to invade Iran?

 

[Claudette]

So your point is that you hate Obama for shutting down the Iran nuclear program?

Just how much do you Obama-haters despise the USA and Israel? You don't have to answer. It's clearly a lot.

Remember, repeating fake-news kook lies about Obama only makes you look bad, not him. You need to understand how normal people haven't been brainwashed by your treasonous retard cult, so we're just disgusted by your behavior.

You think he shut down their program??

Just shows what a biased dolt you are.

Iran will never give up its quest for a nuclear weapon. Anyone who believes they will is more of a dolt than you are.

Iran won on the deal and those proposing it wasted no time patting themselves on the back for a good deal. Iran got sanctions lifted and are still working on their nuclear weapons.

Grow a brain clueless.

 

[Spare_change]

I just turned on the TV briefly to the Obama farewell speech, just in time to hear him say, "We shut down the Iranian nuclear effort".

That was all I needed to hear. I turned the TV off again.

Are the Iranians aware their nuclear project is shut down? Doesn't seem that way. They are still working hammer and tongs on it.

Are even the Americans aware that the Iranian nuclear effort is "shut down"? Unlikely, since Obama just approved giving them more than a hundred tons of uranium, enough to make 10 or more nuclear bombs.

Obama will leave office in ten days. Can't we please, please have a moratorium on his lies, just for that brief period?

Why should Iran listen to the only country on the planet to have used nukes on civilians?

Amazing how perverted the view of the left .... it bears no resemblance to reality.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It's pretty obvious who is doing the squirming

I openly support a party...

Yes

which party do I "openly support" exactly?

The "blame America first" party

Making shit up again are we?

don't try and get out of it...so far you haven't addressed a thing...just squirmed a lot

 

[mamooth]

Fascinating, this open contempt for facts held by all the Obama-haters.

It goes along with their contempt for democracy, freedom, and the USA.

So, ODSers, what's the next talking point coming out of your alternate reality dimension?

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Just flipped over. He's STILL talking.

I think he finally shut up, my show is starting.

Must be tough to miss an episode of the Kardashians.

 

[Auld Phart]

Just flipped over. He's STILL talking.

I think he finally shut up, my show is starting.

Must be tough to miss an episode of the Kardashians.

Kardashians?


Not my style..

I listed the shows I planned on watching earlier.

Bones, and Agents of Shield

 

[WillReadmore]

I have no doubt the Republicans would have used them too. Don't try and get out of it.

We used them to save American lives. Do not forget about Japanese atrocities in its occupied territories. Also, if there was no Pearl Harbor Attack, there would have been no a-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Don't start none if you don't want none.

I'm not stating that the US didn't have reasons to drop the bomb, it's quite a good debate topic actually because there are so many pros and cons to it, so many ifs and buts too.

The point being that perhaps Iran would save lives with them too. With nukes the Iranians would be invaded by the US, they probably wouldn't get sanctions against them once they'd made them either, how many people have died because of these sanctions?

Lots of pros and cons too.

Remember, all those countries that want nukes are anti-America, all those that got them are pro-American, like India and Pakistan (I'm talking recent history here, ie, not the USSR, China, Israel etc).

Iran is a state sponsor of terror that would give nukes to terrorist.

So the US might be too. I mean, it certainly sponsors terrorism. It sponsored the downfall of Hugo Chavez, and failed, it supplied arms to countless groups around the world. That is doesn't seem to have given nukes might be for a reason, and you get the feeling Iran wouldn't give them for the same reasons.

Iran wants nukes for one reason. To stop the US being able to invade.

Sure, that dastardly media, you know, the one you don't like and tells lies all the time? Well, they're pretty big on making the stories that the rich people want you to hear. Like negative ones for Iran and not so negative ones for friendly Saudi Arabia (Another sponsor of terror that gives money and weapons to groups)

When has US stated intent or even put out any inclination that it wants to invade Iran?

Really???

- the USA overthrew the Iranian government.

- subsequent to that, the US helped Iraq in the war between Iraq and Iran, with Rumsfeld taking part in that.

- The US under Rumsfeld as DoD conquered Afghanistan AND Iraq. Just look at a map to see what that means. Essentially our full armed forces were arrayed in a circle around Iran, with US politicians and right wing opinion sources calling for military action against Iran.

- significant right wing policy sources have repeatedly called for bombing Iran. Iranian facilities are deep and hardened. Any serious attempt to end their nuclear program by bombing could well require nuclear bombs, which is something Iran is very aware of, and something the US has done in the past.

There is every reason to consider that Iran has justification in wanting the defense that comes with nuclear deterrence.


BTW: Check out Pakistan/India. It should be no surprise that their wars and their threats of war have been hugely REDUCED by both sides attaining nuclear capability.

-

 

[Divine Wind]

Why should Iran listen to the only country on the planet to have used nukes on civilians?

No worries. You can look forward to a nuclear arms race and everyone can have one! Happy now?

 

[Divine Wind]

Sure he shut down the Iranian nuclear program.

Bill Clinton shut down the North Korean nuke program too.



Sure would be nice to have someone not so damn full of shit for a change.

They did shut them down....just not permanently. President Obama kicked the can down the road 10(?) years, gave Iran back all of their frozen assets (over $100B) and declared victory. Politics as usual in Washington, DC.

 

[WillReadmore]

Sure he shut down the Iranian nuclear program.

Bill Clinton shut down the North Korean nuke program too.



Sure would be nice to have someone not so damn full of shit for a change.

They did shut them down....just not permanently. President Obama kicked the can down the road 10(?) years, gave Iran back all of their frozen assets (over $100B) and declared victory. Politics as usual in Washington, DC.

Demanding a nation to NOT create nuclear weapons (or anything else) is ALWAYS an effort that will continue forever. There is NO permanent approach.

So, calling the Iran deal "kicking the can down the road" can not be justified.

If you have some other approach, please state it.

 

[Divine Wind]

Demanding a nation to NOT create nuclear weapons (or anything else) is ALWAYS an effort that will continue forever. There is NO permanent approach.

So, calling the Iran deal "kicking the can down the road" can not be justified.

If you have some other approach, please state it.

Oh, there's a permanent approach alright. It's just not a very diplomatic one.

Bullshit on your disclaiming this isn't kicking the can down the road. I don't know how old you are or how read you are, but this is basically the same appeasement approach Clinton made with the DPRK. Appeasement doesn't work, it just moves solving the problem into someone else's box. In North Korea's case, it went to GW Bush. Now it's been in Obama's box. Now the DPRK probably has crude nukes and it's in Trump's box. The same is happening with Obama and Iran.

 

[WillReadmore]

Demanding a nation to NOT create nuclear weapons (or anything else) is ALWAYS an effort that will continue forever. There is NO permanent approach.

So, calling the Iran deal "kicking the can down the road" can not be justified.

If you have some other approach, please state it.

Oh, there's a permanent approach alright. It's just not a very diplomatic one.

Bullshit on your disclaiming this isn't kicking the can down the road. I don't know how old you are or how read you are, but this is basically the same appeasement approach Clinton made with the DPRK. Appeasement doesn't work, it just moves solving the problem into someone else's box. In North Korea's case, it went to GW Bush. Now it's been in Obama's box. Now the DPRK probably has crude nukes and it's in Trump's box. The same is happening with Obama and Iran.

You'll be better off if you try to just understand the situation with Iran, as it is more simple.

And, no, there is no permanent solution. You're just plain wrong about that.

Let me guess. You're going to propose conquering Iran. But, not even that does the job, as it simply proves that there is no defense without nuclear deterrence. And, as long as there are people living under that kind of threat, they WILL be working toward being secure within their borders.

And, remember that we already tried overthrowing their government. Was THAT permanent?

 

[Divine Wind]

You'll be better off if you try to just understand the situation with Iran, as it is more simple.

And, no, there is no permanent solution. You're just plain wrong about that.

Let me guess. You're going to propose conquering Iran. But, not even that does the job, as it simply proves that there is no defense without nuclear deterrence. And, as long as there are people living under that kind of threat, they WILL be working toward being secure within their borders.

And, remember that we already tried overthrowing their government. Was THAT permanent?

Wow, you're just all over the page, ain'tcha?

No, I'm not proposing conquering Iran. Funny that you want to go there, but it's pretty common for political partisans to pigeonhole others into a nice self-comforting pattern.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why should Iran listen to the only country on the planet to have used nukes on civilians?

No worries. You can look forward to a nuclear arms race and everyone can have one! Happy now?

Trump actually said he wants one, with RUSSIA.

 

[WillReadmore]

You'll be better off if you try to just understand the situation with Iran, as it is more simple.

And, no, there is no permanent solution. You're just plain wrong about that.

Let me guess. You're going to propose conquering Iran. But, not even that does the job, as it simply proves that there is no defense without nuclear deterrence. And, as long as there are people living under that kind of threat, they WILL be working toward being secure within their borders.

And, remember that we already tried overthrowing their government. Was THAT permanent?

Wow, you're just all over the page, ain'tcha?

No, I'm not proposing conquering Iran. Funny that you want to go there, but it's pretty common for political partisans to pigeonhole others into a nice self-comforting pattern.

On the other hand, you could have stated what you ARE thinking about.

I picked what I did, because of the vacuum of other ideas and the pursuit by many on the right of military solutions to Iranian nukes.

So, I attempted to point out that the most extreme of military options would not solve the problem any more than the solution we have.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why should Iran listen to the only country on the planet to have used nukes on civilians?

No worries. You can look forward to a nuclear arms race and everyone can have one! Happy now?

Trump actually said he wants one, with RUSSIA.

Does this make you happy?

 

[Divine Wind]

On the other hand, you could have stated what you ARE thinking about.

I picked what I did, because of the vacuum of other ideas and the pursuit by many on the right of military solutions to Iranian nukes.

So, I attempted to point out that the most extreme of military options would not solve the problem any more than the solution we have.

Sad that all you do is blame others and point out their mistakes.

Better to offer your point of view with more facts and less insults.

Extreme military solutions do solve problems, but they also command high costs and usually create other problems.

That said, appeasement never works. It's a temporary solution. Again, just kicking the can down the road. Sometimes that's the only option, for the moment, but never forget that another solution should be found. Sooner rather than later.

 

[WillReadmore]

On the other hand, you could have stated what you ARE thinking about.

I picked what I did, because of the vacuum of other ideas and the pursuit by many on the right of military solutions to Iranian nukes.

So, I attempted to point out that the most extreme of military options would not solve the problem any more than the solution we have.

Sad that all you do is blame others and point out their mistakes.

Better to offer your point of view with more facts and less insults.

Extreme military solutions do solve problems, but they also command high costs and usually create other problems.

That said, appeasement never works. It's a temporary solution. Again, just kicking the can down the road. Sometimes that's the only option, for the moment, but never forget that another solution should be found. Sooner rather than later.

- I said nothing derogatory in the post you responded to. You must have astoundingly thin skin.

- It should have been crystal clear that I back the deal that was made. Plus, I tried to be generous enough to suggest a solution that is at the other end of the spectrum in order to cause there to be interest in identifying an alternative to the direction we took.

- Most definitions of "appeasement" are positive. So, I'm not sure why you are attempting to use it in a negative context.

- As I pointed out, ALL directions on this simply kick the can down the road as long as Iran thinks they need nuclear deterrence.

- I pointed out that even the most extreme of military solutions are not permanent, and have the down side of proving to Iran that they need nuclear deterrence.

We have nine or ten years to renew or change the P5+1 deal with Iran that we are part of. I'm all in favor of working on this issue.

Starting here and now.