Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"George W. Bush became president in 2001 and was highly skeptical of Clinton’s deal with North Korea. The new administration terminated missile talks with Pyongyang and then spent months trying to develop its own policy."
You're new here. And you're not even the one I addressed, but you felt compelled to jump in and spout some silly right wing talking points. After all, the righties walked out on talks with N Korea and look how well that worked out.
And here's something to mull over:
The religious right hardliners in Iran oppose the deal.
The religious right hardliners in America oppose the deal.
Coincidence? I report, you decide.
So, go ahead and cite the section of the agreement that allows Iran to develop nukes.
Go.
I'll wait patiently.
Hey!
You don't like fibbing to be challenged, do you?
And all this garbage about "religious right hardliners" is totally irrelevant to those who deny the claim you made about the regime not being allowed to break out to nukes. That is unless you consider Obama one of those right hardliners, because Obama is the one who baldly contradicts your propaganda. And so does a strong bi-partisan majority of over 60% of the US Senate. Religious right hardliners??
Now, getting back to the subject:
The glorious, the INFALLIBLE, the giver of all truth, Obama himself CLEARLY contradicted your claim. He said the following yesterday in an NPR interview:
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.
So Obama is "spouting silly right-wing talking points"???
Under the terms of the deal framework, Iran’s breakout time would be expanded from the present two to three months to at least a year. But that constraint would stay in place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions would start phasing out.
So, even according to Obama, after ten years the constraints will be lifted, gradually reducing the regime's breakout time until that time becomes zero.
Obama admits Iran could cut nuke breakout time to near zero in 13 years | Irascible Musings
Now what exactly is it that you find so difficult to comprehend about your great one's statement? Or are you accusing Barack (Hussein) Obama of lying. How DARE you? He NEVER lies!
You don't like fibbing to be challenged, do you?
And all this garbage about "religious right hardliners" is totally irrelevant to those who deny the claim you made about the regime not being allowed to break out to nukes. That is unless you consider Obama one of those right hardliners, because Obama is the one who baldly contradicts your propaganda. And so does a strong bi-partisan majority of over 60% of the US Senate. Religious right hardliners??
Now, getting back to the subject:
The glorious, the INFALLIBLE, the giver of all truth, Obama himself CLEARLY contradicted your claim. He said the following yesterday in an NPR interview:
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.
So Obama is "spouting silly right-wing talking points"???
Under the terms of the deal framework, Iran’s breakout time would be expanded from the present two to three months to at least a year. But that constraint would stay in place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions would start phasing out.
So, even according to Obama, after ten years the constraints will be lifted, gradually reducing the regime's breakout time until that time becomes zero.
Obama admits Iran could cut nuke breakout time to near zero in 13 years | Irascible Musings
Now what exactly is it that you find so difficult to comprehend about your great one's statement? Or are you accusing Barack (Hussein) Obama of lying. How DARE you? He NEVER lies!
Go.
I'll wait patiently.
From the transcript:
STEVE INSKEEP: So many of the concerns and questions about the Iran deal seem to me to focus on what kind of a country you think Iran is. People are asking, "what will happen in 10 or 15 years as the deal starts to expire," or they're asking "what will Iran do in the region during the period of the deal?" All of those concerns seem to get down to the nature of the government itself, which makes me begin this by asking: Do you believe that Iran's government is a government that is capable of changing its ways?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: What is a more relevant fear would be that in year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.
The 0bama plan gives Iran the bomb, albeit after he has left office and has washed his hands with the entire deal he made. With 0bama, any country that wants one can get the bomb now, because he refuses to do what it would take to stop them from getting one.
The 0bama plan gives Iran the bomb, albeit after he has left office and has washed his hands with the entire deal he made. With 0bama, any country that wants one can get the bomb now, because he refuses to do what it would take to stop them from getting one.
You are either ignorant or a good pretender.
Iran is signatory to NPT. this negotiations with P5+1 is not about whether they are allowed to build an Atom bomb. Because It is already to Clear to Iran and P+1 countries that they can not do so.
This fact is not going to change if Bush, Reagan, Obama or my favorite Dr Ron Paul was the head of the U.S administration.
Iran is signatory to NPT. this negotiations with P5+1 is not about whether they are allowed to build an Atom bomb. Because It is already to Clear to Iran and P+1 countries that they can not do so.
This fact is not going to change if Bush, Reagan, Obama or my favorite Dr Ron Paul was the head of the U.S administration.
Well of course anyone decrying whatever agreement frame which has been accepted by all including US, Iran, China..France..China..Germany..
Course Avid denying of any and all possibilities to negotiate..will repeat and point that scrawny finger at BO..tho a strong negotiator..IS Not the totality of negotiators involved....I SMH..There's no way UN IMF would have agreed to this Framework..much less BO and Cary..and even if some wish to discount European Countries....The Rhetoric and HATE for their Leader (POTUS) has been abound for the last 7 years..and based on HATE..long before he even took office..
Anyone with an ounce of ability to hear things thru a prism of NON-Biases..Would (should) understand..Their President does NOT represent THEM..But the Country and how it figures within that context..HOwever..from some small bedroom or den..HATRED is heaped on BO for their own voted in representatives who have done NOTHING but Obstruct..Defund..or kick can down the road..allowed sequester of 2010 to move foreward..because no one could compromise.. Is it BO fault?? YEP
IF you have issues with taxations or how regulations or whatevers..THAT IS STATE..NOT POTUS.. You wanna take control of your own life..Fine..You have 2 choices..MOVE out of USA or move to STATE that comports to your particular wishes..Federal Laws do NOT directly affect you unless your STATE adopts it..Course IF your State violates certain things..LOOK OUT..It becomes Federal Jurisdiction....
You may complain because Fire Department doesn't come soon enough to extinguish fire..LOL Blame BO..While in reality it was local Govt. who CUT those perks...I have never ever realized just how ignorant people were when they blame their POTUS for things that their own (who they voted for BTW) caused the issue...Tells me a lot about just WHO is playing the blame games that have been going on for too long...$$ backed or those 19% of hate driven types who have been unveiled since BO came to office..
IF you Hate a Man..Fine..Hate the Man..But you cannot blame that man for your failed marriage..nor your default on loans..nor the fact your car got repossessed because of your POTUS..Yet these are the reasons I keep reading about..SMH He can't even talk about his own personal experiences without some sort of blame shame linking it to something ????
The sooner extreme thinkers get a grip on themselves and stop repeating the rhetoric of politicians/media sites who promote them...Just maybe you might appreciate the Rights and privilege you have!! IF you feel so oppressed..Hey..Move to Pakistan..or Syria..Or maybe Iraq..You know the Countries USA should have liberated better than what actually happened..and OF course BO fault....Oh Wait..Who's paying for it with $$ other than lives...Regular American folk....BUT somehow BO is being held accountable for Bush's paying for his 9 year war on credit card..then meltdown of Market place..ALL prior to BO....You complainers should be licking his boots for keeping money investors off the streets of poverty ..BUT nope..Won't happen..since it;s obvious he's a Muslim..non-American and hates America...SMH
You don't like fibbing to be challenged, do you?
And all this garbage about "religious right hardliners" is totally irrelevant to those who deny the claim you made about the regime not being allowed to break out to nukes. That is unless you consider Obama one of those right hardliners, because Obama is the one who baldly contradicts your propaganda. And so does a strong bi-partisan majority of over 60% of the US Senate. Religious right hardliners??
Now, getting back to the subject:
The glorious, the INFALLIBLE, the giver of all truth, Obama himself CLEARLY contradicted your claim. He said the following yesterday in an NPR interview:
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.
So Obama is "spouting silly right-wing talking points"???
Under the terms of the deal framework, Iran’s breakout time would be expanded from the present two to three months to at least a year. But that constraint would stay in place only for 10 years, at which point some restrictions would start phasing out.
So, even according to Obama, after ten years the constraints will be lifted, gradually reducing the regime's breakout time until that time becomes zero.
Obama admits Iran could cut nuke breakout time to near zero in 13 years | Irascible Musings
Now what exactly is it that you find so difficult to comprehend about your great one's statement? Or are you accusing Barack (Hussein) Obama of lying. How DARE you? He NEVER lies!
Go.
I'll wait patiently.
Whoa there, hoss!
Where in the agreement does it say that in 10 years the lid is taken off?
Hint: it doesn't.
But if you can find it, post it.
Your "quote" taken out of context from that interview is a "what if" the agreement is allowed to expire after 10 years.
So, go ahead. Point out where it says that in 10 years Iran will be allowed to have nukes.
Still waiting for something substantive, n00b.
Carry on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
