Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
I know Doug... "KILL THE PALESTINIANS!!!" 'MURDER THE MUSLIMS!!!!"
I just hope your children and grandchildren are taking part in the wars you hungrily desire.
Muleman with all due respect you are simply telling us what Rush told you to tell us. I told you I've been exposed to this game before where you are given seconds to answer something like what would you do if Chicago was blown up by terrorists and any hesitation gets you labeled as a stupid liberal.
I am asking you to take a chance and think for yourself. Here is an article by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis who is Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Yes I know he is an academic and Rush hates them but you have to figure he would not have gotten this position without knowing a lot about nuclear physics.
Here he explains the 24 day issue both in the way it is described in the agreement and the way it has been interpreted by people in opposition to the deal, including Chuck Schumer. I think it is not too much to ask that since you have spent so much energy trying to discredit the agreement--and to drum up hate for Obama which I think is the true motive here--you could at least demonstrate that you understand the agreement.
Chuck Schumer’s Disingenuous Iran Deal Argument
The good senator from New York may be voting his conscience, but he’s got the facts all wrong.
What can be said of the role that the U.S. Congress has tried to establish for itself when it comes to foreign policy? At the risk of out-Dicking former Vice President Cheney himself on the subject of executive authority, Congress is a “branch of government” in precisely the same way that college basketball fans are a “sixth man.” We don’t let fans call plays, other than as some kind of preseason stunt. I am not particularly interested in congressional views about the Iran deal.
Which brings us to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Schumer is one of the most powerful members of the Senate, which is not quite the same thing as saying he’s dignified. Back in the 1990s, when he was a congressman, his House colleagues had a phrase for waking up to find he’d upstaged them in the media: to be “Schumed.” Washingtonians have long joked that the most dangerous place in town is between New York’s senior senator and a microphone. The Washington Post’s Emily Heil has suggested we retire that hackneyed cliché, replacing it instead with this bon mot from former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:
“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” Corzine was quoted as saying in New York magazine. “Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you.”
On Thursday evening, right in the middle of the first GOP debate, Schumer reached back, took aim, and heaved a large one. He penned a long piece for Medium that some anonymous hack described as “thoughtful and deliberate.” Uh, ok. Maybe compared to Mike Huckabee’s outrage about “oven doors,” but good grief our standards for political discourse have fallen.
Schumer’s missive came across a bit like your crazy uncle who gets his opinions from talk radio and wants to set you straight at Thanksgiving. (I’m probably not the only one who thinks so. But then, I don’t have to pretend Schumer is some great statesman lest he put a hold on some future appointment or nomination.)
Consider how Schumer describes the inspections regime in the Iran deal.
Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”
Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.
That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite the U.N. Special Commission’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.
Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.
But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”
This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.
What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences. (Schumer also takes a shot at the snap back. Say what you will about the probability of getting all parties to agree to reimpose sanctions, but agreements like this have never had such an enforcement provision before.)
Even if nefarious Iranian runarounds could be hidden, these efforts, over the course of a few weeks, would not suffice to hide environmental evidence of covert uranium enrichment. Schumer even admits as much. But, he insists, other weapons-related work, like high explosive testing without any nuclear materials, might go undetected.
This, too, is a specious objection. For comparison, opponents of this deal have spent enormous amounts of time demanding access to Iran’s Parchin facility, where precisely this sort of weaponization work appears to have taken place between 1996 and 2002. That was more than a decade ago. There is a certain tension between the claim that a few weeks is much too long and that access to a site 13 years after the fact is absolutely necessary. A person might get suspicious that these arguments aren’t to be taken at face value.
The simple truth is, some aspects of weapons work are hard to detect — no matter what. So what’s the alternative? To not prohibit that work? To permit Iran to do things like paper studies on nuclear weapons development because it’s hard to verify the prohibition? Again, that’s crazy. The Iran deal defines weapons work in far more detail than any previous agreement. That’s a good thing — and those of us who are skeptical of Iranian intentions should welcome it, not use it to attack the deal. The law insists that drug dealers pay their taxes. They don’t, but every now and again the feds put a gangster away for tax evasion. (Ask Al Capone.) Western intelligence services have shown considerable ingenuity in acquiring documents from Iran’s nuclear program. Even if it’s not guaranteed they would do so in the future, the prohibitions in the deal create additional opportunities to stop an illicit weapons program.
Some of us might think it’s good that the agreement puts defined limits on how much Iran can stall and explicitly prohibits a long list of weaponization activities. Opponents, like Schumer — apparently for want of anything better — have seized on these details to spin them into objections. A weaker, less detailed agreement might have been easier to defend against this sort of attack, perhaps.
But let’s not be too critical of Schumer’s insincerity. Despite having repeated these and other arguments against the Iran deal, Schumer, although a member of the Democratic leadership, has gone out of his way to signal that other caucus members should vote their conscience.
Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them.
Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them. Sen. Mitch McConnell, when he was minority leader, openly opposed the New START agreement, while paving the way for a small number of Republican senators to cross party lines to secure its ratification. Schumer appears to be doing something similar in this case, stating his personal opposition but not whipping votes against the deal.
That might be something less than a profile in courage, but it’s how Congress works. And I think it’s a pretty good reason not to let these characters anywhere near foreign policy. But then again, I would have advised the president to veto the Cardin-Corker bill that established this farce of a process. But Obama signed it and here we are.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/
[Edited on 8/11/2015 by Swifty]
Curious since you are so into thinking for yourself did you actually READ Schumer's lengthy explanation and do you have your OWN critique of it? Let's hear it if you do.
The reality may be as simple as he thinks its a bad deal. Can't anyone disagree with Obama without being give a psychiatric diagnosis? Plent of people do not trust Iran as far as you could throw a bus
Anyone who disagrees with Obama on anything is either
1. being paid off by nefarious intersts.
2. playing politics
3. Sadly misinformedThere is no ground for reasonable disagreement. And Obama himself will be happy to make that clear to you as often as it takes.
If you have reasonable grounds for disagreement then post it. It can be debated. You do need to look at both sides of the issue though.
Netanyahu Must Stop Silencing Intel Chiefs Who Find Iran Deal Acceptable
There are those in the Intelligence Corps whose views on the nuclear agreement are at odds with Netanyahu's position; their opinions are being kept from the public.
In the war between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama that is being waged at the whim of a single compulsive Israeli leader who is endangering the country’s population of eight million – the voices of those in charge of intelligence assessment have fallen silent.
The head of the Israel Defense Forces Intelligence Corps, Maj. Gen. Herzl Halevy, and the chief of his research division, Brig. Gen. Eli Ben-Meir, are lying low like carp who don’t relish a future on a plate as gefilte fish. They are hushing up the voices of those in the Intelligence Corps, whose opinions the populace whom they have sworn to serve – and not the prime minister – must hear.
Halevy and Ben-Meir’s predecessors, Aviv Kochavi and Itai Brun, dared make their assessments public, but Halevy and Ben-Meir don’t want to get tripped up, don’t want to be proven wrong, making fools of themselves publicly or riling Benjamin Netanyahu.
Netanyahu is depriving Israel of this intelligence capacity. Even more serious, in the process, he and Ya’alon are transforming the Jewish state, as one senior U.S. military official told his Israeli intelligence colleague, from a friendly force into an enemy that requires intelligence monitoring of its own movements and decision making.
Netanyahu, who is afraid of the publication of intelligence assessments that contradict his own, wants to prevent the public and the U.S. Congress from seeing the cracks in the false facade of a unified Israeli front that opposes the agreement with Iran. Military officers who cooperate with this approach are in breach of their national duty.
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
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.
It's Gillibrand.
Whatever her name is people know who I meant.
Muleman with all due respect you are simply telling us what Rush told you to tell us. I told you I've been exposed to this game before where you are given seconds to answer something like what would you do if Chicago was blown up by terrorists and any hesitation gets you labeled as a stupid liberal.
I am asking you to take a chance and think for yourself. Here is an article by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis who is Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Yes I know he is an academic and Rush hates them but you have to figure he would not have gotten this position without knowing a lot about nuclear physics.
Here he explains the 24 day issue both in the way it is described in the agreement and the way it has been interpreted by people in opposition to the deal, including Chuck Schumer. I think it is not too much to ask that since you have spent so much energy trying to discredit the agreement--and to drum up hate for Obama which I think is the true motive here--you could at least demonstrate that you understand the agreement.
Chuck Schumer’s Disingenuous Iran Deal Argument
The good senator from New York may be voting his conscience, but he’s got the facts all wrong.
What can be said of the role that the U.S. Congress has tried to establish for itself when it comes to foreign policy? At the risk of out-Dicking former Vice President Cheney himself on the subject of executive authority, Congress is a “branch of government” in precisely the same way that college basketball fans are a “sixth man.” We don’t let fans call plays, other than as some kind of preseason stunt. I am not particularly interested in congressional views about the Iran deal.
Which brings us to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Schumer is one of the most powerful members of the Senate, which is not quite the same thing as saying he’s dignified. Back in the 1990s, when he was a congressman, his House colleagues had a phrase for waking up to find he’d upstaged them in the media: to be “Schumed.” Washingtonians have long joked that the most dangerous place in town is between New York’s senior senator and a microphone. The Washington Post’s Emily Heil has suggested we retire that hackneyed cliché, replacing it instead with this bon mot from former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:
“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” Corzine was quoted as saying in New York magazine. “Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you.”
On Thursday evening, right in the middle of the first GOP debate, Schumer reached back, took aim, and heaved a large one. He penned a long piece for Medium that some anonymous hack described as “thoughtful and deliberate.” Uh, ok. Maybe compared to Mike Huckabee’s outrage about “oven doors,” but good grief our standards for political discourse have fallen.
Schumer’s missive came across a bit like your crazy uncle who gets his opinions from talk radio and wants to set you straight at Thanksgiving. (I’m probably not the only one who thinks so. But then, I don’t have to pretend Schumer is some great statesman lest he put a hold on some future appointment or nomination.)
Consider how Schumer describes the inspections regime in the Iran deal.
Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”
Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.
That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite the U.N. Special Commission’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.
Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.
But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”
This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.
What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences. (Schumer also takes a shot at the snap back. Say what you will about the probability of getting all parties to agree to reimpose sanctions, but agreements like this have never had such an enforcement provision before.)
Even if nefarious Iranian runarounds could be hidden, these efforts, over the course of a few weeks, would not suffice to hide environmental evidence of covert uranium enrichment. Schumer even admits as much. But, he insists, other weapons-related work, like high explosive testing without any nuclear materials, might go undetected.
This, too, is a specious objection. For comparison, opponents of this deal have spent enormous amounts of time demanding access to Iran’s Parchin facility, where precisely this sort of weaponization work appears to have taken place between 1996 and 2002. That was more than a decade ago. There is a certain tension between the claim that a few weeks is much too long and that access to a site 13 years after the fact is absolutely necessary. A person might get suspicious that these arguments aren’t to be taken at face value.
The simple truth is, some aspects of weapons work are hard to detect — no matter what. So what’s the alternative? To not prohibit that work? To permit Iran to do things like paper studies on nuclear weapons development because it’s hard to verify the prohibition? Again, that’s crazy. The Iran deal defines weapons work in far more detail than any previous agreement. That’s a good thing — and those of us who are skeptical of Iranian intentions should welcome it, not use it to attack the deal. The law insists that drug dealers pay their taxes. They don’t, but every now and again the feds put a gangster away for tax evasion. (Ask Al Capone.) Western intelligence services have shown considerable ingenuity in acquiring documents from Iran’s nuclear program. Even if it’s not guaranteed they would do so in the future, the prohibitions in the deal create additional opportunities to stop an illicit weapons program.
Some of us might think it’s good that the agreement puts defined limits on how much Iran can stall and explicitly prohibits a long list of weaponization activities. Opponents, like Schumer — apparently for want of anything better — have seized on these details to spin them into objections. A weaker, less detailed agreement might have been easier to defend against this sort of attack, perhaps.
But let’s not be too critical of Schumer’s insincerity. Despite having repeated these and other arguments against the Iran deal, Schumer, although a member of the Democratic leadership, has gone out of his way to signal that other caucus members should vote their conscience.
Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them.
Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them. Sen. Mitch McConnell, when he was minority leader, openly opposed the New START agreement, while paving the way for a small number of Republican senators to cross party lines to secure its ratification. Schumer appears to be doing something similar in this case, stating his personal opposition but not whipping votes against the deal.
That might be something less than a profile in courage, but it’s how Congress works. And I think it’s a pretty good reason not to let these characters anywhere near foreign policy. But then again, I would have advised the president to veto the Cardin-Corker bill that established this farce of a process. But Obama signed it and here we are.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/
[Edited on 8/11/2015 by Swifty]
Curious since you are so into thinking for yourself did you actually READ Schumer's lengthy explanation and do you have your OWN critique of it? Let's hear it if you do.
I have read it and I have also read the supporting pieces. Dozens of former ambassadors, ex military Generals and Admirals, and droves of nuclear scientists who all claim the deal is a good one with unprecedented inspection regimen, the toughest one ever negotiated. I guess all of the non experts know better than all of them though?
[Edited on 8/12/2015 by sixty8]
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
______________________________________________________________________
Rachel Maddow is a far left zealot who will lie about anything in her effort to prop-up and provide cover for Obama and his failures.
She has been repeatedly chastised by media professionals for “making it up as she goes”.
“The military agree with Obama”
Total bull$hit. Active duty military do not comment on political issues.
BTW - the military overwhelmingly disapprove of Obama
Curious since you are so into thinking for yourself did you actually READ Schumer's lengthy explanation and do you have your OWN critique of it? Let's hear it if you do.
First neither you nor I know or are trained to understand the intricacies of this agreement. In this sense for the 24 day period, as well as other issues, we are both dependent on experts. There appears to be considerable support from experts for this agreement.
What both of us can talk about is how the agreement or deal was negotiated. There was extensive lobbying to get Russia and China and other key countries to participate in sanctions against Iran which were effective enough to get Iran to the negotiating table. Now that there is an agreement the international participants want to resume trade with Iran.
The US was only one member of a 6 member coalition and was not in a position to continuously bring up side bars to the negotiations if they were not related to the main objective which was reducing the amount of time it took Iran to build a nuclear bomb.
Obama's position is that it was the best deal to be had under the circumstances. There will always be a better deal but it was not possible considering the context of discussions.
As an example let’s look at how Netanyahu is functioning within his own coalition with Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel. Even though Netanyahu’s party holds the most seats he is beholden to the other parties with lesser members and if he moves in a direction they don’t want they will bolt and he will either have to find other partners or call an election.
Look at the power Trump currently has in the GOP. If he goes 3rd party he can totally control the election results. So all the macho republicans when it comes to facing Putin and China are kissing Trump's a$$.
The best deal is that Iran has no nuclear capacity now or in the future. I would agree with that but how would it be negotiated. The Republican congress has pretty much decimated Obama’s and Kerry’s reputation so they are no longer credible partners for any new agreement. So someone from congress would have to go and negotiate.
Switzerland is already lifting its sanctions and the Germans and French are already in Iran striking business deals. They are capitalists and they want to make money and their economies are suffering. Kerry has stated that these countries will not go back to the negotiating table because the US Congress wants them to.
Kerry and his team negotiated the best deal that they could get and in this task they far outperformed how Netanyahu is handling the Israeli government or the GOP and republicans are handling Trump.
None of the P 5 +1 are for an agreement where Iran has no nuclear capacity which is the opposition objective. So it is this deal or nothing.
And no deal Obama says will eventually lead to war because Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
How do you think you could get a better deal? Trump says he could cut one in 2 hours. Since he is now the GOP de facto leader maybe he should be sent to cut a new deal.
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
Doug is allowed his opinion like everyone else whether some of us agree with him or not. Stop with the below the belt not American bull_hit!!!! That is not fair. He is passionate about our only true ally in that region and there is nothing wrong with that whether you agree with him or not. There are many on both sides of the issue and none of either's patriotism should be questioned here. PERIOD!!!
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
Doug is allowed his opinion like everyone else whether some of us agree with him or not. Stop with the below the belt not American bull_hit!!!! That is not fair. He is passionate about our only true ally in that region and there is nothing wrong with that whether you agree with him or not. There are many on both sides of the issue and none of either's patriotism should be questioned here. PERIOD!!!
Seconded. Doug has never given the impression that he opposes everything the US stands for. Not even close.
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
______________________________________________________________________
Rachel Maddow is a far left zealot who will lie about anything in her effort to prop-up and provide cover for Obama and his failures.
She has been repeatedly chastised by media professionals for “making it up as she goes”.“The military agree with Obama”
Total bull$hit. Active duty military do not comment on political issues.BTW - the military overwhelmingly disapprove of Obama
I think I will just let everyone read this and decide for themselves about what he just said.
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
Doug is allowed his opinion like everyone else whether some of us agree with him or not. Stop with the below the belt not American bull_hit!!!! That is not fair. He is passionate about our only true ally in that region and there is nothing wrong with that whether you agree with him or not. There are many on both sides of the issue and none of either's patriotism should be questioned here. PERIOD!!!
I never said Doug wasn't allowed his opinion. I just pointed out that he takes the Israeli stance on everything while opposing much that this country and everything Obama is for. It is blatant blind patriotism but to the wrong country. I base this on his body of posts, not just his posts on this topic. I am far from the only one who sees this.
And I am allowed my opinion as well.
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
______________________________________________________________________
Rachel Maddow is a far left zealot who will lie about anything in her effort to prop-up and provide cover for Obama and his failures.
She has been repeatedly chastised by media professionals for “making it up as she goes”.“The military agree with Obama”
Total bull$hit. Active duty military do not comment on political issues.BTW - the military overwhelmingly disapprove of Obama
BTW, Muleman, here is a link to the letter that Maddow referenced in the link you did not read.
or, you can read it here.
You might want to read the letter. But you won't. 😛
Muleman with all due respect you are simply telling us what Rush told you to tell us. I told you I've been exposed to this game before where you are given seconds to answer something like what would you do if Chicago was blown up by terrorists and any hesitation gets you labeled as a stupid liberal.
I am asking you to take a chance and think for yourself. Here is an article by Dr. Jeffrey Lewis who is Director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. Yes I know he is an academic and Rush hates them but you have to figure he would not have gotten this position without knowing a lot about nuclear physics.
Here he explains the 24 day issue both in the way it is described in the agreement and the way it has been interpreted by people in opposition to the deal, including Chuck Schumer. I think it is not too much to ask that since you have spent so much energy trying to discredit the agreement--and to drum up hate for Obama which I think is the true motive here--you could at least demonstrate that you understand the agreement.
Chuck Schumer’s Disingenuous Iran Deal Argument
The good senator from New York may be voting his conscience, but he’s got the facts all wrong.
What can be said of the role that the U.S. Congress has tried to establish for itself when it comes to foreign policy? At the risk of out-Dicking former Vice President Cheney himself on the subject of executive authority, Congress is a “branch of government” in precisely the same way that college basketball fans are a “sixth man.” We don’t let fans call plays, other than as some kind of preseason stunt. I am not particularly interested in congressional views about the Iran deal.
Which brings us to New York Sen. Chuck Schumer.
Schumer is one of the most powerful members of the Senate, which is not quite the same thing as saying he’s dignified. Back in the 1990s, when he was a congressman, his House colleagues had a phrase for waking up to find he’d upstaged them in the media: to be “Schumed.” Washingtonians have long joked that the most dangerous place in town is between New York’s senior senator and a microphone. The Washington Post’s Emily Heil has suggested we retire that hackneyed cliché, replacing it instead with this bon mot from former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:
“Sharing a media market with Chuck Schumer is like sharing a banana with a monkey,” Corzine was quoted as saying in New York magazine. “Take a little bite of it, and he will throw his own feces at you.”
On Thursday evening, right in the middle of the first GOP debate, Schumer reached back, took aim, and heaved a large one. He penned a long piece for Medium that some anonymous hack described as “thoughtful and deliberate.” Uh, ok. Maybe compared to Mike Huckabee’s outrage about “oven doors,” but good grief our standards for political discourse have fallen.
Schumer’s missive came across a bit like your crazy uncle who gets his opinions from talk radio and wants to set you straight at Thanksgiving. (I’m probably not the only one who thinks so. But then, I don’t have to pretend Schumer is some great statesman lest he put a hold on some future appointment or nomination.)
Consider how Schumer describes the inspections regime in the Iran deal.
Schumer starts by repeating the claim that “inspections are not ‘anywhere, anytime’; the 24-day delay before we can inspect is troubling.” This would be very troubling if it were true. It isn’t. The claim that inspections occur with a 24-day delay is the equivalent of Obamacare “death panels.” Remember those? A minor detail has been twisted into a bizarre caricature and repeated over and over until it becomes “true.”
Let’s get this straight. The agreement calls for continuous monitoring at all of Iran’s declared sites — that means all of the time — including centrifuge workshops, which are not safeguarded anywhere else in the world. Inspectors have immediate access to these sites.
That leaves the problem of possible undeclared sites. What happens when the International Atomic Energy Agency suspects that prohibited work is occurring at an undeclared site? This is the problem known as the “Ayatollah’s toilet.” It emerged from the challenge of inspecting presidential palaces in Iraq in the 1990s, which — despite the U.N. Special Commission’s demands for immediate access — the Iraqis argued were off-limits.
Far from giving Iran 24 days, the IAEA will need to give only 24 hours’ notice before showing up at a suspicious site to take samples. Access could even be requested with as little as two hours’ notice, something that will be much more feasible now that Iran has agreed to let inspectors stay in-country for the long term. Iran is obligated to provide the IAEA access to all such sites — including, if it comes down to it, the Ayatollah’s porcelain throne.
But that’s not all. The Iran deal has a further safeguard for inspections at undeclared sites, the very provision that Schumer and other opponents are twisting. What happens if Iran tries to stall and refuses to provide access, on whatever grounds? There is a strict time limit on stalling. Iran must provide access within two weeks. If Iran refuses, the Joint Commission set up under the deal must decide within seven days whether to force access. Following a majority vote in the Joint Commission — where the United States and its allies constitute a majority bloc — Iran has three days to comply. If it doesn’t, it’s openly violating the deal, which would be grounds for the swift return of the international sanctions regime, known colloquially as the “snap back.”
This arrangement is much, much stronger than the normal safeguards agreement, which requires prompt access in theory but does not place time limits on dickering.
What opponents of the deal have done is add up all the time limits and claim that inspections will occur only after a 24-day pause. This is simply not true. Should the U.S. intelligence community catch the Iranians red-handed, it might be that the Iranians would drag things out as long as possible. But in such a case, the game would be over. Either the Iranians would never let the inspectors into the site, or its efforts to truck out documents or equipment, wash down the site, or bulldoze buildings, etc., would be highly visible. These tactics would crater the deal, with predictable consequences. (Schumer also takes a shot at the snap back. Say what you will about the probability of getting all parties to agree to reimpose sanctions, but agreements like this have never had such an enforcement provision before.)
Even if nefarious Iranian runarounds could be hidden, these efforts, over the course of a few weeks, would not suffice to hide environmental evidence of covert uranium enrichment. Schumer even admits as much. But, he insists, other weapons-related work, like high explosive testing without any nuclear materials, might go undetected.
This, too, is a specious objection. For comparison, opponents of this deal have spent enormous amounts of time demanding access to Iran’s Parchin facility, where precisely this sort of weaponization work appears to have taken place between 1996 and 2002. That was more than a decade ago. There is a certain tension between the claim that a few weeks is much too long and that access to a site 13 years after the fact is absolutely necessary. A person might get suspicious that these arguments aren’t to be taken at face value.
The simple truth is, some aspects of weapons work are hard to detect — no matter what. So what’s the alternative? To not prohibit that work? To permit Iran to do things like paper studies on nuclear weapons development because it’s hard to verify the prohibition? Again, that’s crazy. The Iran deal defines weapons work in far more detail than any previous agreement. That’s a good thing — and those of us who are skeptical of Iranian intentions should welcome it, not use it to attack the deal. The law insists that drug dealers pay their taxes. They don’t, but every now and again the feds put a gangster away for tax evasion. (Ask Al Capone.) Western intelligence services have shown considerable ingenuity in acquiring documents from Iran’s nuclear program. Even if it’s not guaranteed they would do so in the future, the prohibitions in the deal create additional opportunities to stop an illicit weapons program.
Some of us might think it’s good that the agreement puts defined limits on how much Iran can stall and explicitly prohibits a long list of weaponization activities. Opponents, like Schumer — apparently for want of anything better — have seized on these details to spin them into objections. A weaker, less detailed agreement might have been easier to defend against this sort of attack, perhaps.
But let’s not be too critical of Schumer’s insincerity. Despite having repeated these and other arguments against the Iran deal, Schumer, although a member of the Democratic leadership, has gone out of his way to signal that other caucus members should vote their conscience.
Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them.
Congress has a long history of members voting against agreements while working to pass them. Sen. Mitch McConnell, when he was minority leader, openly opposed the New START agreement, while paving the way for a small number of Republican senators to cross party lines to secure its ratification. Schumer appears to be doing something similar in this case, stating his personal opposition but not whipping votes against the deal.
That might be something less than a profile in courage, but it’s how Congress works. And I think it’s a pretty good reason not to let these characters anywhere near foreign policy. But then again, I would have advised the president to veto the Cardin-Corker bill that established this farce of a process. But Obama signed it and here we are.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/09/upchuck-senator-schumers-disingenuous-iran-deal-argument/
[Edited on 8/11/2015 by Swifty]
Curious since you are so into thinking for yourself did you actually READ Schumer's lengthy explanation and do you have your OWN critique of it? Let's hear it if you do.
I have read it and I have also read the supporting pieces. Dozens of former ambassadors, ex military Generals and Admirals, and droves of nuclear scientists who all claim the deal is a good one with unprecedented inspection regime, the toughest one ever negotiated. I guess all of the non experts know better than all of them though?
X2
Just to clarify - we're referring to GOP senators and members of the house who would always vote polar opposite to anything & everything Obama even if they felt it was good policy.
Not to be left out, we can throw out at least one poster on this site who posts as if everything bitter is a good thing & has never seen a sunny day and blue sky.
[Edited on 8/12/2015 by MartinD28]
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
Doug is allowed his opinion like everyone else whether some of us agree with him or not. Stop with the below the belt not American bull_hit!!!! That is not fair. He is passionate about our only true ally in that region and there is nothing wrong with that whether you agree with him or not. There are many on both sides of the issue and none of either's patriotism should be questioned here. PERIOD!!!
I never said Doug wasn't allowed his opinion. I just pointed out that he takes the Israeli stance on everything while opposing much that this country and everything Obama is for. It is blatant blind patriotism but to the wrong country. I base this on his body of posts, not just his posts on this topic. I am far from the only one who sees this.
And I am allowed my opinion as well.
Yes, he is anti Obama probably like many to the point of ridiculousness but he is far from the only one here who feel that way and it is his right as it is yours or mine to support him. I have bashed just about everything the puppet GW Bush and his puppeteer Cheney did and will continue to and that is my right as well. I think many members of that administration should have been held legally accountable for their decisions about Iraq but that doesn't make me not American. Let's just keep it to heated arguments without questioning each others patriotism or love of country.
Comment so stupid muledouche had to post it twice.
_____________________________________________________________________
Seems that ron is still angry that his wife threw his a$$ out and the judge gave her 65% of his welfare checks.
Well that is pretty lame (even for you) and factually incorrect at every point, just like EVERY muledouche post in this forum.
Tanks!
Comment so stupid muledouche had to post it twice.
_____________________________________________________________________
Seems that ron is still angry that his wife threw his a$$ out and the judge gave her 65% of his welfare checks.
Well that is pretty lame (even for you) and factually incorrect at every point, just like EVERY muledouche post in this forum.
Tanks!
_________________________________________________________________________
Get over it son.
Comment so stupid muledouche had to post it twice.
_____________________________________________________________________
Seems that ron is still angry that his wife threw his a$$ out and the judge gave her 65% of his welfare checks.
Well that is pretty lame (even for you) and factually incorrect at every point, just like EVERY muledouche post in this forum.
Tanks!
_________________________________________________________________________
Get over it son.
I guess you told him. Froze him out like the growing Antarctic ice... Oh wait, it is really shrinking. Like your credibility... Oh wait, you have no credibility.
Ya know, all these pages and I still haven't seen anyone say if they are for or against the proposed treaty.
Seen a lot of arguments about the treaty, but no one has said if they would vote yes or no on it.
Ya know, all these pages and I still haven't seen anyone say if they are for or against the proposed treaty.
Seen a lot of arguments about the treaty, but no one has said if they would vote yes or no on it.
Since you asked, I am in favor of the treaty for a couple of reasons. The rest of the world seems to think it is a good idea and Iran is more of threat to Europe than to the U.S. with a nuclear weapon. Also, if the rest of the world drops the sanctions, our sanctions will not mean anything. Last, they are trying to build a nuke now. If the treaty does not take effect, they will continue to build nukes. If the inspection plan is as good as advertised, it should keep their nuclear program in check.
Curious since you are so into thinking for yourself did you actually READ Schumer's lengthy explanation and do you have your OWN critique of it? Let's hear it if you do.
First neither you nor I know or are trained to understand the intricacies of this agreement. In this sense for the 24 day period, as well as other issues, we are both dependent on experts. There appears to be considerable support from experts for this agreement.
What both of us can talk about is how the agreement or deal was negotiated. There was extensive lobbying to get Russia and China and other key countries to participate in sanctions against Iran which were effective enough to get Iran to the negotiating table. Now that there is an agreement the international participants want to resume trade with Iran.
The US was only one member of a 6 member coalition and was not in a position to continuously bring up side bars to the negotiations if they were not related to the main objective which was reducing the amount of time it took Iran to build a nuclear bomb.
Obama's position is that it was the best deal to be had under the circumstances. There will always be a better deal but it was not possible considering the context of discussions.
As an example let’s look at how Netanyahu is functioning within his own coalition with Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel. Even though Netanyahu’s party holds the most seats he is beholden to the other parties with lesser members and if he moves in a direction they don’t want they will bolt and he will either have to find other partners or call an election.
Look at the power Trump currently has in the GOP. If he goes 3rd party he can totally control the election results. So all the macho republicans when it comes to facing Putin and China are kissing Trump's a$$.
The best deal is that Iran has no nuclear capacity now or in the future. I would agree with that but how would it be negotiated. The Republican congress has pretty much decimated Obama’s and Kerry’s reputation so they are no longer credible partners for any new agreement. So someone from congress would have to go and negotiate.
Switzerland is already lifting its sanctions and the Germans and French are already in Iran striking business deals. They are capitalists and they want to make money and their economies are suffering. Kerry has stated that these countries will not go back to the negotiating table because the US Congress wants them to.
Kerry and his team negotiated the best deal that they could get and in this task they far outperformed how Netanyahu is handling the Israeli government or the GOP and republicans are handling Trump.
None of the P 5 +1 are for an agreement where Iran has no nuclear capacity which is the opposition objective. So it is this deal or nothing.
And no deal Obama says will eventually lead to war because Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
How do you think you could get a better deal? Trump says he could cut one in 2 hours. Since he is now the GOP de facto leader maybe he should be sent to cut a new deal.
The best deal is one in which a fascist terrorist regime is not empowered with billions of dollars to increase its hegemony in the most volatilel region on earth. Until Mr. Obama this was the bi-partisan and fully accepted policy of the United States of America.
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
Doug is allowed his opinion like everyone else whether some of us agree with him or not. Stop with the below the belt not American bull_hit!!!! That is not fair. He is passionate about our only true ally in that region and there is nothing wrong with that whether you agree with him or not. There are many on both sides of the issue and none of either's patriotism should be questioned here. PERIOD!!!
Thank you Pete. I appreciate your fairness and goodwill even though you and I have passionately disagreed on this issue. I need to point out that the above tactic is now coming straight and directly fromt he president of the United States and it is not only his conservative opponents who are noting it. Ruth Marcus who is a liberal Obama supporter basically told him to cut the crap as did Jeffrey Goldberg who not only supports the deal but has been Obama's go to guy on issues to do with Israel because of his support and understanding. The masks are coming off.
Mulesman -
Honestly curious and would like to know what you make of this exerpt from a recent NY Times article on the Iran deal.
You said before "Patriotism trumps politics and ideology."
I think I am WITH you that patriotism should come first for elected members of the US government in this instance.
What are your thoughts on this:
"For Democrats who have long viewed themselves as supporters of Israel, Mr. Netanyahu’s speech sought to impress upon them the likelihood that they will eventually need to make an awkward, painful choice between the president of their country and their loyalty to the Jewish state."
That in and of itself is a phony statement designed to make it look like Israel is manipulating this. The reality is that it is a terrible deal for the United States and american security and 2/3 of the American public oppose it not because of Israel but because of the United States.
BS. Do you have any proof of that? Here is what I know. The military agree with Obama. You constantly post your opinion as fact.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/military-leaders-side-obama-iran-deal
Israel opposes it. I am an American. What are you, Doug? It is obvious that you prefer Israel over the US, as you back them and oppose everything the US stands for. So what are you? An American? Or something else?
Doug is allowed his opinion like everyone else whether some of us agree with him or not. Stop with the below the belt not American bull_hit!!!! That is not fair. He is passionate about our only true ally in that region and there is nothing wrong with that whether you agree with him or not. There are many on both sides of the issue and none of either's patriotism should be questioned here. PERIOD!!!
I never said Doug wasn't allowed his opinion. I just pointed out that he takes the Israeli stance on everything while opposing much that this country and everything Obama is for. It is blatant blind patriotism but to the wrong country. I base this on his body of posts, not just his posts on this topic. I am far from the only one who sees this.
And I am allowed my opinion as well.
You make one serious logical mistake bro. You assume Obama stands for what America stands for. I couldn't possibly disagree more. I think Obama stands for what America is against or has been against much of the time. I stand for what I believe America stands for. And naturally I resent any implication otherwise. I don't blame you though. Since the day he took office Obama has subtely and sometimes vocally let it be known that to oppose him is to be disloyal to America and he is doing it in spades on this isse.
Ya know, all these pages and I still haven't seen anyone say if they are for or against the proposed treaty.
Seen a lot of arguments about the treaty, but no one has said if they would vote yes or no on it.Since you asked, I am in favor of the treaty for a couple of reasons. The rest of the world seems to think it is a good idea and Iran is more of threat to Europe than to the U.S. with a nuclear weapon. Also, if the rest of the world drops the sanctions, our sanctions will not mean anything. Last, they are trying to build a nuke now. If the treaty does not take effect, they will continue to build nukes. If the inspection plan is as good as advertised, it should keep their nuclear program in check.
The "rest of the world" is interested in one thing. Doing business with Iran. Ironic that so many on the left who are against profiteers now site that as a reason to favor it.
The "rest of the world" is interested in one thing. Doing business with Iran. Ironic that so many on the left who are against profiteers now site that as a reason to favor it.
Actually the preference would be for the GOP to turn Iranians into communist peasants by denying Iran the capital to modernize whereby the people become so mesmerized with commodities and sitcoms that war becomes a bygone memory. That would be a bad solution.
Edit: I forgot a "that"
[Edited on 8/13/2015 by Swifty]
You make one serious logical mistake bro. You assume Obama stands for what America stands for. I couldn't possibly disagree more. I think Obama stands for what America is against or has been against much of the time. I stand for what I believe America stands for. And naturally I resent any implication otherwise. I don't blame you though. Since the day he took office Obama has subtely and sometimes vocally let it be known that to oppose him is to be disloyal to America and he is doing it in spades on this isse.
They should make a statute of you with fist clenched and an inflated dick and put it up next to the Statute of Liberty so foreigners really know what America stands for.
You make one serious logical mistake bro. You assume Obama stands for what America stands for. I couldn't possibly disagree more. I think Obama stands for what America is against or has been against much of the time. I stand for what I believe America stands for. And naturally I resent any implication otherwise. I don't blame you though. Since the day he took office Obama has subtely and sometimes vocally let it be known that to oppose him is to be disloyal to America and he is doing it in spades on this isse.
I totally disagree but... 100% applaud your integrity. I wish I had said what you just said when GW was in office. Instead, I just punched people in the mouth.
No BS. I salute you Doug. I really do.
I hope you get over it quickly. Don't let it eat you up... but I truly understand.
They should make a statute of you with fist clenched and an inflated dick and put it up next to the Statute of Liberty so foreigners really know what America stands for.
Nothing I said makes me disagree with this statement.
