Do you support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal or do you reject the deal as does an ever growing number of leading Democrats in Congress, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?
Critical-thinking-free regurgitated Fox News talking points brought to you by?! Kool-Aid!
_______________________________________________________________________
axeman ducks the question.
Chuck Shumer as well as many of the Democrat leadership in the Senate and The House have openly stated their rejection of the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear deal which has been reported by ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, A/P, Reuters, WSJ, BBC and every other major news organization.
The White House throws a temper tantrum about Sen. Shumer’s defection.
White House rips Schumer for opposing Iran nuclear deal:
Yea, Fox News talking points. The usual attempt by the liberals to deny the facts.
Are you incapable of or just unwilling to answer the question?
If so don’t worry about it. Your liberal friends here are cowards too.
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:
Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?
______________________________________________________________________
The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.
Eh, no actually you are wrong again Mule. The S-300 is a surface to air missile and is a defensive weapon not an ICBM. The top of the line model has a range of 200km's max so I don't think Iran will using them to deliver nukes to America anytime soon.
You should try doing a little research before you post your misinformation.
[Edited on 8/8/2015 by Bill_Graham]
_______________________________________________________________________
Wrong again son.
The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. That missile deal was confirmed last February.
If you had read the National Security Update (June 2015-appended) you would know these details.
You won’t find the information in Rolling Stone.Your ignorance of current factual information is typical of the far-left but of course this is not a populist social matter.
Link please or I call bull$hit as the S-300 is a defensive system not an ICBM.
_______________________________________________________________________
I didn’t say the S-300 was an ICBM
What I did say was:The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Those are two separate missile systems and both are included in the deal.BTW – the S-300 can be configured as either a defensive or offensive weapons system.
Once you learn to read the next step is to learn what the words mean. Take small steps son.
No go read your original post. You claimed the variant of the S-300 was an IBCM and then back tracked and then claimed they would be also be sold a variant of the R36M as well. So which is it? Also the most advanced versions of the S- 300's have a max range of 200km so cannot be used as ICBM's.
Please provide your proof that Russia is selling Iran ICBM's as all the internet sources state it is S-300's which are Russian versions of the Patriot missiles which are defensive weapon systems. Nobody is claiming Russia is selling Iran ICBM's other than you.
Provide your source or you are full of $hit.
______________________________________________________________________
You are obviously incapable of reading and understanding the information. Misrepresenting my statements and then posing a question based on your lie isn’t worth my time to try and enlighten you.
I gave you one source already. There are many if you know where to mine the data.The question still remains:
Do you support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal or do you reject the deal as does an ever growing number of leading Democrats in Congress, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?
I am not misrepresenting anything Mule as I quoted exactly what you said in your post which anyone can read in this string.
First you claimed Russia was selling Iran a variant of the S-300 missile and that it was an ICBM. The S-300 is a defensive missile system. There is no variant that is an ICBM.
You then backtracked and claimed in addition to the S-300 they were selling Iran R36M ICBM's which are completely different missile technologies and referenced some resource you refuse to provide a link too. Typical conservative fear mongering.
Typical deflection on your part. When caught in a lie you try to change the subject and refuse to provide any proof of what you claim. You are a liar and a fraud.
[Edited on 8/9/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Over on Facebook people have been ripping Schumer for weeks saying he would agree to the deal. Then when Hillenbrand decided to support the deal and Schumer followed with his non support the same people on Facebook were ripping him and accusing him of having a backroom deal with Obama to cover his butt with his constituents. Now they are all eating crow. They all owe him a huge apology.
Do you support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal or do you reject the deal as does an ever growing number of leading Democrats in Congress, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?
Critical-thinking-free regurgitated Fox News talking points brought to you by?! Kool-Aid!
_______________________________________________________________________
axeman ducks the question.
Chuck Shumer as well as many of the Democrat leadership in the Senate and The House have openly stated their rejection of the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear deal which has been reported by ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, A/P, Reuters, WSJ, BBC and every other major news organization.
The White House throws a temper tantrum about Sen. Shumer’s defection.
White House rips Schumer for opposing Iran nuclear deal:
Yea, Fox News talking points. The usual attempt by the liberals to deny the facts.
Are you incapable of or just unwilling to answer the question?
If so don’t worry about it. Your liberal friends here are cowards too.
I humbly submit that this is EXACTLY your problem Muleman: you seem to need to have things spelled out for you in black and white otherwise you can't seem to come up with an answer on your own. Take a look at my posts here (including the ones with all the questions you didn't answer) and see if you can tell me whether or not I support the deal. I'll bet you can figure it out if you try. And that is my main point in this thread: you need to read between the lines here because the bulls*t they are telling you in the papers and on all the networks is likely NOT what this is really all about. (I still get the feeling you are just trolling most of the time though.)
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:
Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?
______________________________________________________________________
The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.
Eh, no actually you are wrong again Mule. The S-300 is a surface to air missile and is a defensive weapon not an ICBM. The top of the line model has a range of 200km's max so I don't think Iran will using them to deliver nukes to America anytime soon.
You should try doing a little research before you post your misinformation.
[Edited on 8/8/2015 by Bill_Graham]
_______________________________________________________________________
Wrong again son.
The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. That missile deal was confirmed last February.
If you had read the National Security Update (June 2015-appended) you would know these details.
You won’t find the information in Rolling Stone.Your ignorance of current factual information is typical of the far-left but of course this is not a populist social matter.
Link please or I call bull$hit as the S-300 is a defensive system not an ICBM.
_______________________________________________________________________
I didn’t say the S-300 was an ICBM
What I did say was:The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Those are two separate missile systems and both are included in the deal.BTW – the S-300 can be configured as either a defensive or offensive weapons system.
Once you learn to read the next step is to learn what the words mean. Take small steps son.
No go read your original post. You claimed the variant of the S-300 was an IBCM and then back tracked and then claimed they would be also be sold a variant of the R36M as well. So which is it? Also the most advanced versions of the S- 300's have a max range of 200km so cannot be used as ICBM's.
Please provide your proof that Russia is selling Iran ICBM's as all the internet sources state it is S-300's which are Russian versions of the Patriot missiles which are defensive weapon systems. Nobody is claiming Russia is selling Iran ICBM's other than you.
Provide your source or you are full of $hit.
______________________________________________________________________
You are obviously incapable of reading and understanding the information. Misrepresenting my statements and then posing a question based on your lie isn’t worth my time to try and enlighten you.
I gave you one source already. There are many if you know where to mine the data.The question still remains:
Do you support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal or do you reject the deal as does an ever growing number of leading Democrats in Congress, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?
I am not misrepresenting anything Mule as I quoted exactly what you said in your post which anyone can read in this string. Maybe you meant something else but that is not how it reads.
First you claimed Russia was selling Iran a variant of the S-300 missile and that it was an ICBM. The S-300 is a defensive missile system. There is no variant that is an ICBM.
You then backtracked and claimed in addition to the S-300 they were selling Iran R36M ICBM's which are completely different missile technologies and referenced some resource you refuse to provide a link too.
Every news source, and there are many including conservative sources, mentions the S-300 but there is nothing even hinting that Russia is selling Iran ICBM's.
Typical deflection on your part. When caught in a lie you try to change the subject and refuse to provide any proof of what you claim. if you have a source why not provide so you can prove I am wrong and insult me? otherwise you are a liar and a fraud.
[Edited on 8/9/2015 by Bill_Graham]
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:
Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?
______________________________________________________________________
The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.
Eh, no actually you are wrong again Mule. The S-300 is a surface to air missile and is a defensive weapon not an ICBM. The top of the line model has a range of 200km's max so I don't think Iran will using them to deliver nukes to America anytime soon.
You should try doing a little research before you post your misinformation.
[Edited on 8/8/2015 by Bill_Graham]
_______________________________________________________________________
Wrong again son.
The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. That missile deal was confirmed last February.
If you had read the National Security Update (June 2015-appended) you would know these details.
You won’t find the information in Rolling Stone.Your ignorance of current factual information is typical of the far-left but of course this is not a populist social matter.
Link please or I call bull$hit as the S-300 is a defensive system not an ICBM.
_______________________________________________________________________
I didn’t say the S-300 was an ICBM
What I did say was:The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Those are two separate missile systems and both are included in the deal.BTW – the S-300 can be configured as either a defensive or offensive weapons system.
Once you learn to read the next step is to learn what the words mean. Take small steps son.
No go read your original post. You claimed the variant of the S-300 was an IBCM and then back tracked and then claimed they would be also be sold a variant of the R36M as well. So which is it? Also the most advanced versions of the S- 300's have a max range of 200km so cannot be used as ICBM's.
Please provide your proof that Russia is selling Iran ICBM's as all the internet sources state it is S-300's which are Russian versions of the Patriot missiles which are defensive weapon systems. Nobody is claiming Russia is selling Iran ICBM's other than you.
Provide your source or you are full of $hit.
______________________________________________________________________
You are obviously incapable of reading and understanding the information. Misrepresenting my statements and then posing a question based on your lie isn’t worth my time to try and enlighten you.
I gave you one source already. There are many if you know where to mine the data.The question still remains:
Do you support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal or do you reject the deal as does an ever growing number of leading Democrats in Congress, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?
I am not misrepresenting anything Mule as I quoted exactly what you said in your post which anyone can read in this string. Maybe you meant something else but that is not how it reads.
First you claimed Russia was selling Iran a variant of the S-300 missile and that it was an ICBM. The S-300 is a defensive missile system. There is no variant that is an ICBM.
You then backtracked and claimed in addition to the S-300 they were selling Iran R36M ICBM's which are completely different missile technologies and referenced some resource you refuse to provide a link too.
Every news source, and there are many including conservative sources, mentions the S-300 but there is nothing even hinting that Russia is selling Iran ICBM's.
Typical deflection on your part. When caught in a lie you try to change the subject and refuse to provide any proof of what you claim. if you have a source why not provide so you can prove I am wrong and insult me? otherwise you are a liar and a fraud.
[Edited on 8/9/2015 by Bill_Graham]
Here is an excerpt from an article I read today.
The issue of being FOR the deal or AGAINST the deal does not exist in some kind of reality vacuum where the only consideration is whether Obama is a "wimp and weak" or some such non-sense. This excerpt lists some of the other issues involved that are apparently NOT mentioned in the mainstream media.
If you are AGAINST this peace deal, or even against Iran having a bomb, how do you also deal with the following issues?:
"The reasons for Obama’s fear of a precipitous confrontation with Tehran go beyond the bloodbath that a war on Iran would entail. The US president warned that a repudiation of the nuclear deal would provoke a dangerous confrontation with Russia and China. It would also, he strongly suggested, inflame relations with Washington’s allies in Europe, in the first instance Germany, as well with those in Asia. None of them, he declared, will bow to the “dictates of the US Congress” and enforce a unilateral American sanctions regime that has already cost their economies billions upon billions of dollars.
Germany, France, Italy and other European countries have already dispatched high-level delegations to Tehran to negotiate lucrative contracts. They have made it clear that they will not return to the negotiating table, much less to sanctions.
Berlin’s second-highest-ranking diplomat in Washington warned Thursday that a US repudiation of the nuclear deal “would be a nightmare…a catastrophe,” driving Iran and possibly other countries to rapidly pursue nuclear weapons in the knowledge that no negotiated agreement will be respected by the US.
If the US military attacks Iran as European capitalism attempts to penetrate its market, the end result could well be the death of the NATO alliance and the eruption of military tensions between Europe and America.
Obama also called attention to the implications of any attempt to force China to return to the sanctions regime. “We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system,” he said. “And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by the way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.”
Implicit in such an outcome is a military confrontation with China. It would also plunge the US and world economy into a full-scale Depression, Obama suggested."
Here is an excerpt from an article I read today.
The issue of being FOR the deal or AGAINST the deal does not exist in some kind of reality vacuum where the only consideration is whether Obama is a "wimp and weak" or some such non-sense. This excerpt lists some of the other issues involved that are apparently NOT mentioned in the mainstream media.
If you are AGAINST this peace deal, or even against Iran having a bomb, how do you also deal with the following issues?:
"The reasons for Obama’s fear of a precipitous confrontation with Tehran go beyond the bloodbath that a war on Iran would entail. The US president warned that a repudiation of the nuclear deal would provoke a dangerous confrontation with Russia and China. It would also, he strongly suggested, inflame relations with Washington’s allies in Europe, in the first instance Germany, as well with those in Asia. None of them, he declared, will bow to the “dictates of the US Congress” and enforce a unilateral American sanctions regime that has already cost their economies billions upon billions of dollars.
Germany, France, Italy and other European countries have already dispatched high-level delegations to Tehran to negotiate lucrative contracts. They have made it clear that they will not return to the negotiating table, much less to sanctions.
Berlin’s second-highest-ranking diplomat in Washington warned Thursday that a US repudiation of the nuclear deal “would be a nightmare…a catastrophe,” driving Iran and possibly other countries to rapidly pursue nuclear weapons in the knowledge that no negotiated agreement will be respected by the US.
If the US military attacks Iran as European capitalism attempts to penetrate its market, the end result could well be the death of the NATO alliance and the eruption of military tensions between Europe and America.
Obama also called attention to the implications of any attempt to force China to return to the sanctions regime. “We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system,” he said. “And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by the way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.”
Implicit in such an outcome is a military confrontation with China. It would also plunge the US and world economy into a full-scale Depression, Obama suggested."
Don't bore us with the facts Axe, we are Americans and we don't care what other nations think.
Now please stop being a wimp and find us someone to bomb will you. 😛
I just hope we have to reinstate the draft so Americans have skin in the game. Once our children and grand children start dying and coming home maimed, maybe then we will realize that diplomacy is a better answer.
I just hope we have to reinstate the draft so Americans have skin in the game. Once our children and grand children start dying and coming home maimed, maybe then we will realize that diplomacy is a better answer.
___________________________________________________________________
When has diplomacy ever worked with a country sworn to destroy us?
I just hope we have to reinstate the draft so Americans have skin in the game. Once our children and grand children start dying and coming home maimed, maybe then we will realize that diplomacy is a better answer.
___________________________________________________________________
When has diplomacy ever worked with a country sworn to destroy us?
Here is an excerpt from an article I read today.
The issue of being FOR the deal or AGAINST the deal does not exist in some kind of reality vacuum where the only consideration is whether Obama is a "wimp and weak" or some such non-sense. This excerpt lists some of the other issues involved that are apparently NOT mentioned in the mainstream media.
If you are AGAINST this peace deal, or even against Iran having a bomb, how do you also deal with the following issues?:
"The reasons for Obama’s fear of a precipitous confrontation with Tehran go beyond the bloodbath that a war on Iran would entail. The US president warned that a repudiation of the nuclear deal would provoke a dangerous confrontation with Russia and China. It would also, he strongly suggested, inflame relations with Washington’s allies in Europe, in the first instance Germany, as well with those in Asia. None of them, he declared, will bow to the “dictates of the US Congress” and enforce a unilateral American sanctions regime that has already cost their economies billions upon billions of dollars.
Germany, France, Italy and other European countries have already dispatched high-level delegations to Tehran to negotiate lucrative contracts. They have made it clear that they will not return to the negotiating table, much less to sanctions.
Berlin’s second-highest-ranking diplomat in Washington warned Thursday that a US repudiation of the nuclear deal “would be a nightmare…a catastrophe,” driving Iran and possibly other countries to rapidly pursue nuclear weapons in the knowledge that no negotiated agreement will be respected by the US.
If the US military attacks Iran as European capitalism attempts to penetrate its market, the end result could well be the death of the NATO alliance and the eruption of military tensions between Europe and America.
Obama also called attention to the implications of any attempt to force China to return to the sanctions regime. “We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system,” he said. “And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by the way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.”
Implicit in such an outcome is a military confrontation with China. It would also plunge the US and world economy into a full-scale Depression, Obama suggested."
_________________________________________________________________________
“Obama suggested”
No kidding.
Of course Obama said those things. He is desperately trying to sell his legacy foreign policy “accomplishment”. Since he has no other, he is willing to sell out The U.S. to feather his cap.
Remember the other false narrative he said: “It is either this deal or war. That is all The Republicans have to offer”.
That of course is crap.
It is this deal or strengthen the sanctions and strangle Iran into destroying their nuclear weapons program.
This deal is a bad deal.
1.) Iran only has to unplug their centrifuges, not destroy them
2.) Iran will not permit any inspections of their nuclear weapons development on their military bases
3.) No Americans can participate in any inspection nor are they privy to the results of the IAEA inspections
4.) The IAEA has proven in the past that they are both incompetent and politically motivated. Saddam Hussein played them like broken fiddle.
5.) There is no enforcement provision should any inspection find evidence of nuclear weapons development.
6.) Iran gets the long range missiles from Russian on their schedule
7.) The Americans held hostage in Iran will not be released
8.) Iran can continue to be the world’s leader in funding and supplying terrorists in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and many others.
9.) The International sanctions on hundreds of billions of dollars on Iran are lifted in full and immediately
10.) The deal has so many sunset provisions it make it useless.
11.) Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said the deal would have the “gravest of consequences for The U.S. and The World”.
The list is much longer but contains facts which you seem to not hear.
Other countries in The Middle East are already making arrangements to start their own nuclear weapons programs notably Saudi Arabia which recently signed a deal with Russia.
How long do you think it will take for at least one of the new Middle East nuclear powers to use their power?
So, do you support the deal or reject it?
Here is an excerpt from an article I read today.
The issue of being FOR the deal or AGAINST the deal does not exist in some kind of reality vacuum where the only consideration is whether Obama is a "wimp and weak" or some such non-sense. This excerpt lists some of the other issues involved that are apparently NOT mentioned in the mainstream media.
If you are AGAINST this peace deal, or even against Iran having a bomb, how do you also deal with the following issues?:
"The reasons for Obama’s fear of a precipitous confrontation with Tehran go beyond the bloodbath that a war on Iran would entail. The US president warned that a repudiation of the nuclear deal would provoke a dangerous confrontation with Russia and China. It would also, he strongly suggested, inflame relations with Washington’s allies in Europe, in the first instance Germany, as well with those in Asia. None of them, he declared, will bow to the “dictates of the US Congress” and enforce a unilateral American sanctions regime that has already cost their economies billions upon billions of dollars.
Germany, France, Italy and other European countries have already dispatched high-level delegations to Tehran to negotiate lucrative contracts. They have made it clear that they will not return to the negotiating table, much less to sanctions.
Berlin’s second-highest-ranking diplomat in Washington warned Thursday that a US repudiation of the nuclear deal “would be a nightmare…a catastrophe,” driving Iran and possibly other countries to rapidly pursue nuclear weapons in the knowledge that no negotiated agreement will be respected by the US.
If the US military attacks Iran as European capitalism attempts to penetrate its market, the end result could well be the death of the NATO alliance and the eruption of military tensions between Europe and America.
Obama also called attention to the implications of any attempt to force China to return to the sanctions regime. “We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system,” he said. “And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by the way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency.”
Implicit in such an outcome is a military confrontation with China. It would also plunge the US and world economy into a full-scale Depression, Obama suggested."
_________________________________________________________________________
“Obama suggested”
No kidding.Of course Obama said those things. He is desperately trying to sell his legacy foreign policy “accomplishment”. Since he has no other, he is willing to sell out The U.S. to feather his cap.
Remember the other false narrative he said: “It is either this deal or war. That is all The Republicans have to offer”.
That of course is crap.
It is this deal or strengthen the sanctions and strangle Iran into destroying their nuclear weapons program.
This deal is a bad deal.
1.) Iran only has to unplug their centrifuges, not destroy them
2.) Iran will not permit any inspections of their nuclear weapons development on their military bases
3.) No Americans can participate in any inspection nor are they privy to the results of the IAEA inspections
4.) The IAEA has proven in the past that they are both incompetent and politically motivated. Saddam Hussein played them like broken fiddle.
5.) There is no enforcement provision should any inspection find evidence of nuclear weapons development.
6.) Iran gets the long range missiles from Russian on their schedule
7.) The Americans held hostage in Iran will not be released
8.) Iran can continue to be the world’s leader in funding and supplying terrorists in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and many others.
9.) The International sanctions on hundreds of billions of dollars on Iran are lifted in full and immediately
10.) The deal has so many sunset provisions it make it useless.
11.) Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno said the deal would have the “gravest of consequences for The U.S. and The World”.The list is much longer but contains facts which you seem to not hear.
Other countries in The Middle East are already making arrangements to start their own nuclear weapons programs notably Saudi Arabia which recently signed a deal with Russia.
How long do you think it will take for at least one of the new Middle East nuclear powers to use their power?
So, do you support the deal or reject it?
Again, all you do is regurgitate talking points. Haven't addressed any of the points I and others have made which include:
1) So what if Iran gets a bomb? Do you really think they will use it as an offensive weapon rather than a deterrent? If so, please do explain how that ends well for them.
2) What are your answers to Europe ignoring continued US sanctions and military intervention?
3) Are you willing to risk war with both China and Russia/ WW III over this? Why?
4) What is your answer if China retaliates and stops buying our debt as laid out in the scenario above?
I don't like Obama and couldn't give two cents about his "legacy" which, I assure you, will not be this, Obamacare or even his unprecedented war of the press. It will be the TPP and the destruction of US sovereignty.
You exceptional at trolling though; keep sucking me in.
quote:
I just hope we have to reinstate the draft so Americans have skin in the game. Once our children and grand children start dying and coming home maimed, maybe then we will realize that diplomacy is a better answer.___________________________________________________________________
When has diplomacy ever worked with a country sworn to destroy us?
The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.
This was posted today.
29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal in Letter to Obama
Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent.
The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Mr. Obama is lobbying Congress, the American public and the nation’s allies to support the agreement.
quote:
I just hope we have to reinstate the draft so Americans have skin in the game. Once our children and grand children start dying and coming home maimed, maybe then we will realize that diplomacy is a better answer.___________________________________________________________________
When has diplomacy ever worked with a country sworn to destroy us?
The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.
Hahaha!!
7. The Americans held hostage in Iran will not be released
8.) Iran can continue to be the world’s leader in funding and supplying terrorists in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and many others.
9.) The International sanctions on hundreds of billions of dollars on Iran are lifted in full and immediately
So the hostages would have been immediately released if the US pulled out of the discussions? And they will definitely be released if congress opposes the deal. Diplomacy usually works in stages.
Per 8 + 9 you obviously have no knowledge of Middle East affairs or the P5 + 1 deal.
We also have to remember that the politicians who came up with the other points and prefer a military engagement can't even handle Donald Trump.
7. The Americans held hostage in Iran will not be released
8.) Iran can continue to be the world’s leader in funding and supplying terrorists in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq and many others.
9.) The International sanctions on hundreds of billions of dollars on Iran are lifted in full and immediatelySo the hostages would have been immediately released if the US pulled out of the discussions? And they will definitely be released if congress opposes the deal. Diplomacy usually works in stages.
Per 8 + 9 you obviously have no knowledge of Middle East affairs or the P5 + 1 deal.
We also have to remember that the politicians who came up with the other points and prefer a military engagement can't even handle Donald Trump.
_______________________________________________________________________
Wrong.
7.) Obama and Kerry failed to get our hostages released.
The question you pose is ridiculous on its face. The two with the responsibility were unsuccessful again.
8.) There is no provision for Iran to stop their funding and supplying terrorists. Iran refused to stop and Kerry capitulated.
9.) The lifting of all sanctions on Iran immediately is specifically stated in the deal.
I have read the deal as it was given to Congress.
Obviously you have not.
Do you support the deal or reject it as to many in the Democrat leadership, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?
quote:
I just hope we have to reinstate the draft so Americans have skin in the game. Once our children and grand children start dying and coming home maimed, maybe then we will realize that diplomacy is a better answer.___________________________________________________________________
When has diplomacy ever worked with a country sworn to destroy us?
The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.
________________________________________________________________________
That was done by President Reagan and President Bush. Two great Presidents.
The deal is by Obama a proven failure and considered the worst President of the modern era.
Works all the time? I think the Ukraine would not agree
Next.
That was done by President Reagan and President Bush. Two great Presidents.
The deal is by Obama a proven failure and considered the worst President of the modern era.
=
So far not one liberal is capable or willing to take a position on the deal.
That alone speaks volumes.
Are they ignorant of the salient points?
Is it because their nose is so far up Obama’s a$$ they can’t bring themselves say?
Typical chicken sh*t cowardice?
They seem to have an opinion on every side issue they create off topic.
Why not the matter itself?
MXXXman > Trollman!
The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.
________________________________________________________________________
That was done by President Reagan and President Bush. Two great Presidents.
The deal is by Obama a proven failure and considered the worst President of the modern era.Works all the time? I think the Ukraine would not agree
Next.
Next? Mule - you carry a burden of ignorance so heavy that it must be difficult to raise your head from the pile of dirty underwear you rest it on at night.
The US is currently a signatory on 100's if not 1000's of treaties. You are obviously unqualified to intellectually take part in a discussion on foreign affairs.
We are involved in treaties with countries as diverse as Afghanistan and Slovenia. We are signed on to treaties with Angola, Cuba, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Atomic Energy Community, European Organization for the Exploitation of Meterological Satellites, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, International Fusion Energy Organization, Iran (Yeah - Currently involved in a treaty with Iran you Butt Napkin), Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mexico, Mongolia (Scary Mongols), Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, NIUE, Pakistan, Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO Mutton Head), Qatar, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore,... the list goes on.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf
Where do I stand on the treaty?
Ratify it! Of course ratify it. The Republicans got nothing. Something better? What a $*cking joke. The Republican list of solutions is as vastly empty as the desert sands.
You Right Wing no answer piles of ignorance need to shut up and leave the negotiating to your elders. You got nothing but loud mouths.
The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.
________________________________________________________________________
That was done by President Reagan and President Bush. Two great Presidents.
The deal is by Obama a proven failure and considered the worst President of the modern era.Works all the time? I think the Ukraine would not agree
Next.
Next? Mule - you carry a burden of ignorance so heavy that it must be difficult to raise your head from the pile of dirty underwear you rest it on at night.
The US is currently a signatory on 100's if not 1000's of treaties. You are obviously unqualified to intellectually take part in a discussion on foreign affairs.
We are involved in treaties with countries as diverse as Afghanistan and Slovenia. We are signed on to treaties with Angola, Cuba, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Atomic Energy Community, European Organization for the Exploitation of Meterological Satellites, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, International Fusion Energy Organization, Iran (Yeah - Currently involved in a treaty with Iran you Butt Napkin), Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mexico, Mongolia (Scary Mongols), Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, NIUE, Pakistan, Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO Mutton Head), Qatar, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore,... the list goes on.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf
Where do I stand on the treaty?
Ratify it! Of course ratify it. The Republicans got nothing. Something better? What a $*cking joke. The Republican list of solutions is as vastly empty as the desert sands.
You Right Wing no answer piles of ignorance need to shut up and leave the negotiating to your elders. You got nothing but loud mouths.
The Soviet Union for one you dim wit. It works all the time.
________________________________________________________________________
That was done by President Reagan and President Bush. Two great Presidents.
The deal is by Obama a proven failure and considered the worst President of the modern era.Works all the time? I think the Ukraine would not agree
Next.
Next? Mule - you carry a burden of ignorance so heavy that it must be difficult to raise your head from the pile of dirty underwear you rest it on at night.
The US is currently a signatory on 100's if not 1000's of treaties. You are obviously unqualified to intellectually take part in a discussion on foreign affairs.
We are involved in treaties with countries as diverse as Afghanistan and Slovenia. We are signed on to treaties with Angola, Cuba, Bhutan, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Chad, China, Congo, Croatia, Cyprus, Djibouti, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, European Atomic Energy Community, European Organization for the Exploitation of Meterological Satellites, France, Gabon, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, International Fusion Energy Organization, Iran (Yeah - Currently involved in a treaty with Iran you Butt Napkin), Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mexico, Mongolia (Scary Mongols), Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, NIUE, Pakistan, Palestine Liberation Organization (the PLO Mutton Head), Qatar, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore,... the list goes on.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/218912.pdf
Where do I stand on the treaty?
Ratify it! Of course ratify it. The Republicans got nothing. Something better? What a $*cking joke. The Republican list of solutions is as vastly empty as the desert sands.
You Right Wing no answer piles of ignorance need to shut up and leave the negotiating to your elders. You got nothing but loud mouths.
______________________________________________________________________
“The US is currently a signatory on 100's if not 1000's of treaties”
- How many of those are arms treaties with countries sworn to destroy The U.S.?
“Ratify it! Of course ratify it. The Republicans got nothing”
- We would support a good deal but we have a weak President and a Sec. of State that doesn’t have the skills to negotiate a good deal. That is why so many of the Democrat leadership and the vast majority of The American People want the deal rejected.
Remember Democrat leadership and the vast majority of The American People that reject the deal. You forgot to mention that in your rant.
Have you read the deal or just take snippets from liberal rags and weblogs?
The many Democrat leadership members of Congress, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People want a far better deal and are not interested in ki$$ing the a$$ of a failed President.
Patriotism trumps politics and ideology.
little billy:
BTW – there is nothing to “ratify”
This fiasco is not a treaty, it is an executive action and requires approval by Congress.
You would know this if you had a clue.
Wrong.
7.) Obama and Kerry failed to get our hostages released.
The question you pose is ridiculous on its face. The two with the responsibility were unsuccessful again.
8.) There is no provision for Iran to stop their funding and supplying terrorists. Iran refused to stop and Kerry capitulated.
9.) The lifting of all sanctions on Iran immediately is specifically stated in the deal.
I have read the deal as it was given to Congress.
Obviously you have not.Do you support the deal or reject it as to many in the Democrat leadership, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?
Not one of the statements above confirm that you understand any part of the agreement.
First, it is an international agreement and the US was part of a group called P5 + 1. This means that there had to be a consensus among members as to focus and the overall emphasis was on stopping Iran from building a nuclear bomb. The hostages, along with many other issues such as support for outside terrorist groups, were not on the agenda.
Your position on all issues is biased by your hatred for President Obama and you seem to believe the nutty stuff you post should inspire others to join you in this hatred. Hopefully, for the sake of your mental health this is only a part-time vocation.
You also have all the markings of a Limbaugh Dittohead. I've met many like you.
Patriotism trumps politics and ideology.
Wow.
Blind allegiance over ideas.
Apply that to Germany in 1933 and think real hard about how that approach works out.
“The US is currently a signatory on 100's if not 1000's of treaties”
- How many of those are arms treaties with countries sworn to destroy The U.S.?
Look at the list! You are the only one who can relieve yourself of the terrible burden of ignorance Muleman. Iraq is on the list. So are many other countries that are not our allies. Follow the link you poor, simple, simple man.
“The US is currently a signatory on 100's if not 1000's of treaties”
- How many of those are arms treaties with countries sworn to destroy The U.S.?
Look at the list! You are the only one who can relieve yourself of the terrible burden of ignorance Muleman. Iraq is on the list. So are many other countries that are not our allies. Follow the link you poor, simple, simple man.
__________________________________________________________________________
The U.S. had Iraq handled but Obama cut and ran allowing ISIS to take over a third on the country.
There are no other countries on your list that pose a credible threat.
The bottom line is Obama and Kerry are giving Iran an easy path to making nuclear weapons.
As most say, this is a bad deal from a weak president desperate for what he can claim a foreign policy success.
