Why do Republicans support a nuclear Iran?

[g5000]

The rubes see an ambulance with UN markings on the back of a flatbed truck in Georgia, and they fucking lose it. DUH UN'Z TAKEN OVER!

But hey, we're going to make Iran hand over their uranium, and force them to refit a reactor, and hand over their centrifuges and submit to inspections and more inspections and more inspections and its, "DATZ A BAD PLAN DAT DON'T GO FAR NUFF!"

 

[Rocko]

First, it would be nearly impossible to take out Iran's nuclear program with airstrikes.

Second, such a strike would only convince the Iranian people they need a nuke more than ever.

Idiotic plan.

Then the Iranian people are retarded.

Nope. It would be an entirely rational conclusion. "If we have nukes, they won't dare fuck with us."

And they would be right.

Yeah ok...If I was an Iranian and I got bombed by the US or Israel, I would have enough common sense to understand my country getting bombed was a direct result of my country trying to build nuclear weapons. Apparently you think everyone in Iran is an idiot and they would overlook the reason as to why they are getting bombed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Staying the course and maintaining existing sanctions will result in Iran having the capability to produce eight nuclear weapons within six months

Under the new agreement, Iran would not have the ability to produce one warhead in the next ten years

Is Republican hatred of Obama so great that they would rather have a nuclear Iran than for Obama to get credit for disarming them?

Why do you support Obama raping and murdering small boys?

 

[ogibillm]

That's always the Republican Party plan for any problem: Don't offer up an alternative, and attack the other guy's plan.

That's the tactic of the worst breed of coward.

well, they are always willing to send other people to war.

 

[Flopper]

Staying the course and maintaining existing sanctions will result in Iran having the capability to produce eight nuclear weapons within six months

Under the new agreement, Iran would not have the ability to produce one warhead in the next ten years

Is Republican hatred of Obama so great that they would rather have a nuclear Iran than for Obama to get credit for disarming them?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is yes. It's a huge achievement. Could it have been better? Maybe but maybe not and Iran would have continued as in past toward becoming a formidable foe well armed with nuclear weapons. Many on the Right can not miss the chance to stop Obama, regardless of the cost to the nation and the world. First Cuba, then Iran; it's too much for those on Right to swallow.

 

[rightwinger]

Because they are restricting where inspections can take place.

ah. so we'll have less inspections in iran after the implementation of the agreement than we have now... is that right?

No.

Where did you get that idea?

But, they could continue building on military bases, and inspectors would be non the wiser.

Is there something about that you dont' understand?

The truth...they will do whatever they want, there is no way to stop them once they get their money. This was a joke, obama planned on giving them everything and now they have it.

What did Iran give us?

Nothing.

They gave up their stockpiles of depleted Uranium, their centerfuges and at least ten years of their nuclear program

We allowed them to have their own money back

 

[rightwinger]

Still looking for a republican position on what we should be doing instead of this deal

working for a BETTER deal

Very good

Given the amount of goodwill republicans have built up with Iran..... What kind of deal would they get

And.like Obama, you'd go for a bad deal, rather than no deal at all?

With no deal, they continue their nuclear development

Like I said......Republicans supporting a nuclear Iran

 

[Uncensored2008]

They gave up their stockpiles of depleted Uranium, their centerfuges and at least ten years of their nuclear program

We allowed them to have their own money back

Sure they did, Shitflinger...

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Iran got a good deal and they have much motivation to abide by the deal. Eighty million Iranians stand to profit from an oil industry that will once more compete in the world market and America wins with lower oil prices. Iran also knows that diplomacy prevailed this time around and any failure will be met with very hard consequences. This is a winner folks, letting the hatred for Obama get in the way is more destructive than you know.

you can bet if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, it will be because the republicans agreed to this.
but, if the gas prices drop right before the elections, it will be because the democrats agreed to this.

 

[Auld Phart]

Still looking for a republican position on what we should be doing instead of this deal

working for a BETTER deal

Very good

Given the amount of goodwill republicans have built up with Iran..... What kind of deal would they get

And.like Obama, you'd go for a bad deal, rather than no deal at all?

With no deal, they continue their nuclear development

Like I said......Republicans supporting a nuclear Iran

Seriously, Spanky...

Do you ever post anything but unmitigated partisan bullshit?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

what makes you think Iran will be any more cooperative regarding inspection than it has been especially when the deal gives them both notice and the right to refuse?

it does not give them the right to refuse. they can protest, but not refuse

Yeah...we saw how well this worked with iraq.

it did work with iraq. iraq did not have a wmd program.

And you know that how?

The accord will keep Iran from producing enough material for a nuclear weapon for at least 10 years and impose new provisions for inspections of Iranian facilities, including military sites.

Read more: Iran reaches landmark nuclear deal after compromise on U.N. inspections - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

that's how.
what makes anyone think that there are no inspection zones?

'However, access isn’t guaranteed and could be delayed, a condition that critics of the deal Under the accord, Tehran would have the right to challenge U.N requests, and an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers would then decide on the issue."

reading

so there aren't 'no inspection zones'
thank you.

So you weren't old enough to remember the iraq weapons inspection fiasco?
That would explain a lot of things....

i remember they were refusing inspectors. i also remember that they weren't voluntarily in that agreement, and that they did not have wmd programs.

what do you remember?

And you think this is going to be any different?
Saddam agreed to a lot of things..right up until he decided to disagree.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Staying the course and maintaining existing sanctions will result in Iran having the capability to produce eight nuclear weapons within six months

Under the new agreement, Iran would not have the ability to produce one warhead in the next ten years

Is Republican hatred of Obama so great that they would rather have a nuclear Iran than for Obama to get credit for disarming them?

Like you, the man is a proven liar.....

Are you claiming that he is not endorsing a nuclear powered Iran?


Better read this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon - The Atlantic

 

[ogibillm]

Staying the course and maintaining existing sanctions will result in Iran having the capability to produce eight nuclear weapons within six months

Under the new agreement, Iran would not have the ability to produce one warhead in the next ten years

Is Republican hatred of Obama so great that they would rather have a nuclear Iran than for Obama to get credit for disarming them?

Like you, the man is a proven liar.....

Are you claiming that he is not endorsing a nuclear powered Iran?


Better read this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon - The Atlantic

and.... the agreement prevents iran from building a nuclear weapon.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Staying the course and maintaining existing sanctions will result in Iran having the capability to produce eight nuclear weapons within six months

Under the new agreement, Iran would not have the ability to produce one warhead in the next ten years

Is Republican hatred of Obama so great that they would rather have a nuclear Iran than for Obama to get credit for disarming them?

Like you, the man is a proven liar.....

Are you claiming that he is not endorsing a nuclear powered Iran?


Better read this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon - The Atlantic

and.... the agreement prevents iran from building a nuclear weapon.

Even you can't be this stupid.

 

[ogibillm]

it does not give them the right to refuse. they can protest, but not refuse

Yeah...we saw how well this worked with iraq.

it did work with iraq. iraq did not have a wmd program.

Read more: Iran reaches landmark nuclear deal after compromise on U.N. inspections - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

that's how.
what makes anyone think that there are no inspection zones?

'However, access isn’t guaranteed and could be delayed, a condition that critics of the deal Under the accord, Tehran would have the right to challenge U.N requests, and an arbitration board composed of Iran and the six world powers would then decide on the issue."

reading

so there aren't 'no inspection zones'
thank you.

So you weren't old enough to remember the iraq weapons inspection fiasco?
That would explain a lot of things....

i remember they were refusing inspectors. i also remember that they weren't voluntarily in that agreement, and that they did not have wmd programs.

what do you remember?

And you think this is going to be any different?
Saddam agreed to a lot of things..right up until he decided to disagree.

it is different. iraq did not willingly enter into those inspection agreements. however, the inspections were successful. iraq did not have a wmd program.

 

[ogibillm]

Staying the course and maintaining existing sanctions will result in Iran having the capability to produce eight nuclear weapons within six months

Under the new agreement, Iran would not have the ability to produce one warhead in the next ten years

Is Republican hatred of Obama so great that they would rather have a nuclear Iran than for Obama to get credit for disarming them?

Like you, the man is a proven liar.....

Are you claiming that he is not endorsing a nuclear powered Iran?


Better read this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon - The Atlantic

and.... the agreement prevents iran from building a nuclear weapon.

Even you can't be this stupid.

what do you think the agreement does, other than eliminate centrifuges, limit uranium enrichment to 3.67%, reduce stockpiles of uranium, and grant access to inspectors? how do you think the agreement does not disallow the building of a nuclear weapon by iran?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Staying the course and maintaining existing sanctions will result in Iran having the capability to produce eight nuclear weapons within six months

Under the new agreement, Iran would not have the ability to produce one warhead in the next ten years

Is Republican hatred of Obama so great that they would rather have a nuclear Iran than for Obama to get credit for disarming them?

Like you, the man is a proven liar.....

Are you claiming that he is not endorsing a nuclear powered Iran?


Better read this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon - The Atlantic

and.... the agreement prevents iran from building a nuclear weapon.

Even you can't be this stupid.

what do you think the agreement does, other than eliminate centrifuges, limit uranium enrichment to 3.67%, reduce stockpiles of uranium, and grant access to inspectors? how do you think the agreement does not disallow the building of a nuclear weapon by iran?

OK....I was a bit hasty earlier.....you can be this stupid.


The agreement does nothing of the sort....it simply hands $100 billion dollars over to terrorists and leaves dogs to guard the cheeseburgers.


Here's your lesson for today, you moron:

"In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیةtaqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious lie,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, specially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2] A similar concept inSunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) "coercion". A related concept is known as kitman"concealment; dissimulation by omission". Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage."
Taqiya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


I just wish you were the only one to suffer as a result of your stupidity.

 

[ogibillm]

Staying the course and maintaining existing sanctions will result in Iran having the capability to produce eight nuclear weapons within six months

Under the new agreement, Iran would not have the ability to produce one warhead in the next ten years

Is Republican hatred of Obama so great that they would rather have a nuclear Iran than for Obama to get credit for disarming them?

Like you, the man is a proven liar.....

Are you claiming that he is not endorsing a nuclear powered Iran?


Better read this:

Here are some of his statements on the subject, going back to his first campaign for the presidency:


June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."


June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"


November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."


February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."


January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."


July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."


May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."


October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president:"Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."


November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."


December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."


December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."


January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."


March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."


March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."


March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."


March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.


March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."


September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Obama s Crystal-Clear Promise to Stop Iran From Getting a Nuclear Weapon - The Atlantic

and.... the agreement prevents iran from building a nuclear weapon.

Even you can't be this stupid.

what do you think the agreement does, other than eliminate centrifuges, limit uranium enrichment to 3.67%, reduce stockpiles of uranium, and grant access to inspectors? how do you think the agreement does not disallow the building of a nuclear weapon by iran?

OK....I was a bit hasty earlier.....you can be this stupid.


The agreement does nothing of the sort....it simply hands $100 billion dollars over to terrorists and leaves dogs to guard the cheeseburgers.


Here's your lesson for today, you moron:

"In Shi'a Islam, taqiya (تقیةtaqiyyah/taqīyah) is a form of religious lie,[1] or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts, specially while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution.[2] A similar concept inSunni Islam is known as idtirar (إضطرار) "coercion". A related concept is known as kitman"concealment; dissimulation by omission". Also related is the concept of ḥiyal, legalistic deception practiced not necessarily in a religious context but to gain political or legalistic advantage."
Taqiya - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


I just wish you were the only one to suffer as a result of your stupidity.

good god you must not be able to read.
iran only gets its assets if it has met its obligations.

and go fuck your religious bigotry.

 

[Stephanie]

Not any you know of..
The Islamic Republic of Iran s Violation of Treaties and Multilateral Agreements UANI

your link doesn't show that there are any 'no inspections zones'
try again.

It shows there will be.

no, it doesn't. but if there were, that would be a violation of the agreement. that would mean that the sanctions would return, and we'd be no worse off than we are now.

So whats to stop them from starting their nuke program up once they get their money?
This deal wont be enforceable and iran has shown many times that they dont honor agreements. Not sure why you think this time will be any different.

Because Obama says it will

and you know that Obama. He's the most brilliant man who never DROPS bombs on any other countries and his word is all he needs to garner a Nobel Peace prize

now I go puke

snip;
Countries bombed by the U.S. under the Obama administration
By Kevin Liptak, CNN



Updated 9:38 PM ET, Tue September 23, 2014

Story highlights

• President Obama has ordered airstrikes in seven different countries
• Obama was close to ordering airstrikes in Syria in 2013
• Obama is the fourth president in a row to order airstrikes in Iraq

He's the war-ending President who, as of Tuesday, has ordered airstrikes in seven different countries

all of it here:
Countries bombed by the U.S. under Obama administration - CNNPolitics.com

 

[nuhuh]

your link doesn't show that there are any 'no inspections zones'
try again.

It shows there will be.

no, it doesn't. but if there were, that would be a violation of the agreement. that would mean that the sanctions would return, and we'd be no worse off than we are now.

So whats to stop them from starting their nuke program up once they get their money?
This deal wont be enforceable and iran has shown many times that they dont honor agreements. Not sure why you think this time will be any different.

Because Obama says it will

and you know that Obama. He's the most brilliant man who never DROPS bombs on any other countries and his word is all he needs to garner a Nobel Peace prize

now I go puke

snip;
Countries bombed by the U.S. under the Obama administration
By Kevin Liptak, CNN



Updated 9:38 PM ET, Tue September 23, 2014

Story highlights

• President Obama has ordered airstrikes in seven different countries
• Obama was close to ordering airstrikes in Syria in 2013
• Obama is the fourth president in a row to order airstrikes in Iraq

He's the war-ending President who, as of Tuesday, has ordered airstrikes in seven different countries

all of it here:
Countries bombed by the U.S. under Obama administration - CNNPolitics.com

This is downright hilarious. If any Republican had been president we would have boots on the ground in all of those countries and another $3 trillion added to the national debt. At least someone understands what it takes to get the job done.