Obama letting Iran have nukes...maybe Rudy was right (highway, governor, visas)

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by simetime

Methinks that you hit that bong entirely tooooo hard......Just breathe just a little.

You have no proof that he's taking in any substances legal in Colorado.

Originally Posted by simetime

You and the other Faux fiends totally ignored the fact that the treasonous 47 totally undermine the nuke talks, but I guess that does not matter now does it?

See my posts above. The Republicans had to put Iran on notice that they would not be bound by any Obama-nable deal since it is rare for one President to disavow another President's work or recreation.

[quote=simetime;38843881] If the Dems would have sent Gorby a letter to undermine good old Ronny R, there would have been hell to pay.What do you call the nuclear freeze demonstrations? Yes they were aimed at Andropov but same thought.

Originally Posted by simetime

If it was not so ironically stupid, I would serious think that you suffer from IHATEOBAMAITIS. The sad thing about it is that many of you still claim that it is not racially motivated to the point that some of you are willing to support actual treason. All that I can do is nod my head in disbelief.

Where does race come into this? Many opposed SALT II for the same reasons and Carter sure looked white.

[Aceter]

Anti-Obama politicians are so full of crap. They"ll talk about everything under the sun yet nothing about how their feelings are shared by average Joe bigot.

[Goodnight]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

This and any other treaty should be subject to ratification. Obama should not be able to do an "end run" around Congress just because the mass media solons are rooting for a "deal" at any price. This "deal" will allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. There are fig leaf provisions but nothing that keeps Iran out of the nuclear camp.

Inspectors sound great. But remember Saddam Hussein locked some of them up for a while and then prohibited one of their inspections. And I think that happened more than once. What is the West going to do when that happens, whine?

If the election turns into a referendum on the treaty, sure. The average American feels that Obama is out of touch with them. He is floating in an alternate reality composed of mass media and Ivy League universities.

This is not an end run and this is not a treaty, you cannot reasonably involve congress in direct sensitive negotiations with 7 countries involved. Attempts to break off negotiations that have not been completed is premature and senseless. They will have their opportunity to vote on the removal of sanctions tied to nuclear development in Iran, that is their participation.

Yes no question that Saddam Hussein gave inspectors the run around but they did ask for more time before we invaded, 10 years later the better choice is obvious. There will be inspectors inside Iran to check compliance but issues remain.

The vote on removal of sanctions will most likely occur after the 2016 election, so why the attempt to circumvent negotiations at this point in time, are destructive relations with Iran the better choice. A not so perfect deal is better than no deal at all.

[Spartacus713]

Dem Sen. Menendez: Obama Statements on Iran "Sound Like Talking Points Straight Out Of Tehran" | Video | RealClearPolitics

"SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-New Jersey): I have to be honest with you, the more I hear from the administration and quotes. The more it sounds like talking points coming out of Tehran."

Wow. He said this during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Video and text at the link.

[Old Gringo]

Dear right wingers...

Please tone down all the rabid snarling and snapping and let some reality shine in.

Dubya let N Korea have nukes by walking away from negotiations and they simply went forward with their program and we all know what happened after that point.

Without an agreement, Iran will do the same thing. And your precious GOP is dead set against an agreement, which is exactly how they fouled up vs N Korea.

If you're so wise and experienced in international negotiations, serve up your brilliant solutions.

Please.

Carry on.

[TheCityTheBridge]

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Stop comparing Iran to other countries, this has nothing to do with India. India does not threat nuclear annihilation nor does it fund terrorist to kill people. Your opinion about European participation is noted, however, the Gulf Region is and will prepare for its nuclear arsenal while Iran has "Good" ties with Europe.

India has nuclear weapons, as does its rival neighbor Pakistan. India and Pakistan fought a series of direct wars after independence, and an even larger number of proxy wars via insurgency. Note that India-Pakistan relations have become more stable in the nuclear weapons era.

Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. Without a nuclear weapon, its ballistic missiles cannot deliver a nuclear strike.

There are 4 possible Gulf responses to Iranian development of a nuclear weapon (although there is no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon):

1) Israeli declaration of its nuclear weapons (near 100% certainty)
2) Extension of US nuclear umbrella (also near 100% certainty)
3) Pakistan-Saudi Arabian deal on nuclear deterrence (apparently already under negotiation)
4) Other nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey) spin up nuclear programs (likelihood near zero for Turkey and unlikely for Egypt and Saudi Arabia)

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Dude, just stop. I explained to you over three times how this violates the NPT. They are not cooperating with the IAEA. If they had nothing to hide and aloud their inspectors in their suspected sites, this issue would of been dropped years ago.

You are wrong. Iran is cooperating with IAEA. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focu...-of-key-events. That is the meaning of the "Framework on Cooperation" in place between Iran and the IAEA.

You may also want to see this: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news...nt-plan-action

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news...oard-governors

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/f...infcirc214.pdf

In other words, there are inspectors in Iran.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

You make no sense. It already happened. Iran received equipment and technology to construct its nuclear program for civilian purposes. As an NPT signatory, Iran is forbidden to engage in a nuclear weapons program. Under suspicion of a nuclear weapons program, Iran violates the NPT by not being transparent about its secret sites. Lets not make this any more complicated than it really is.

Iran is cooperating with IAEA and negotiating with the P5+1. So reporting, negotiations, and cooperation is occurring. Please provide some link to secret sites about which Iran is not being transparent. NCRI is both biased and unreliable.

As an NPT signatory, Iran is entitled to develop civilian nuclear power.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Iran has been circumspect about launch testing's because they are forbidden to do so and fear harsher sanctions. I cannot imagine European leaders not dreading over any type of ballistic missile in Iranian position that could potentially hit their cities. They biggest concern is the mobile launchers that Iran is creating. These mobile launchers are hard to find in a country the size of Iran and can be camouflaged. Saddam used them during the Gulf War against Israel and not one of them was found to be destroyed. Just another worry to add to the Iranian list.

So, in other words, their missile program is complying with the UN Security Council Resolution?

Again, a ballistic missile program without a nuclear weapon is nothing for the world to fear. The most reliable and safest way to prevent a nuclear weapon is to negotiate, build confidence, and improve relations.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

A nuclear Iran will create a hegemonic Iran and who knows what Iran will conquer and command.

An Iranian backed Iraq, Lebanon, Syria would draw in more conflict.

An Iranian backed Yemen is unacceptable to KSA.

A nuclear Iran has already ignited a security dilemma because the NPT is no longer enforceable.

Nuclear power will not create a hegemon. A nuclear weapon would not create a hegemon, because Israel and the United States have nuclear forces to deter Iran.

Saudi Arabia will attempt to undermine the Houthis in Yemen. That will happen with or without an Iranian nuclear program.

Syria is deeply in conflict. That is not because of the Iranian nuclear program, but because of the Syrian government, the Syrian people, and the War in Iraq.

Iraq has been deeply in conflict since the 2003 invasion.

The NPT remains enforceable.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Who is Israel's proxy's? What is Israel's hegemonic agenda? Enlighten me.

Irgun terrorist? Maybe the Stern Gang, but you haven't a clue about the conditions and struggle of Pre-Israel Jewery. Palestinians are not Israeli citizens, and any attack against an Israeli settler is a terrorist attack.

Israel sells arms to Romania, Morocco, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey, Uruguay, South Africa, and many, many others. The arms trade is a major pillar of Israel's economy, raking in about $7.5 billion annually (national GDP is around $300 billion annually, so arms exports alone are around 2.5% of GDP). Israel's booming secretive arms trade - Al Jazeera English

Israel's alleged proxies have included Jundallah, the Free Syrian Army, MEK, PJAK, PKK and other Kurdish militants, and others.

I am aware of the conditions and struggles of Jews before and after the foundation of Israel. That does not change the fact that Irgun used terrorism against residents of Palestine, both Jewish and non-Jewish.

ZIONISTS CONDEMN PALESTINE TERROR - Basle Congress Bars Joining in London Parley Now but Leaves Way Open Zionists Score Palestine Terror By Irgun Zvai Leumi, Stern Gang $58,000,000 Budget Submitted Arabs Protest to British - Front Page - NYTimes.com
Article Details
https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...1948/12/02.htm
New Palestine Party - Visit of Menachen Begin and Aims of Political Movement Discussed - Letter - NYTimes.com

Irgun blew up the King David Hotel in order to attack the British Mandate. They carried out a series of bombings and attacks against Palestinian Arabs and Bretons in the 30s and 40s.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

For one, Ariel Sharon son's blatant opinion is not Israeli law. Second, Lieberman is known for his strong language, but I fail to see where you have proven of an open Israeli government comment of nuclear genocide of the Palestinian people. You may "interoperate" this unconfirmed quote as such, but Israel cannot threat a country of nuclear annihilation if it does not admit it has them.

"Lieberman is known for his strong language." That's rich--calling for nuclear attack on Gaza is "strong language." He was a lawmaker at the time, and he became the Foreign Minister shortly after. Again, it is not in question that Israel has nuclear weapons. That fact is widely recognized, in spite of the policy of "nuclear ambiguity." Gaza is not a country, either.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

I will continue to cry terrorism and support of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and Hamas. You are delusional in your hopefulness.

And you lose sight of geo-strategy and geo-Grand Strategy as a result.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Right, because blowing up Jews at the AMIA building in Argentina is more humane. Give me a break with your Iranian apologies.

Maybe this article will help you: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/08/su...m=twitter&_r=1

Only two questions you say? Nope, 11.

U.N. nuclear watchdog says pace of Iran's cooperation slow | Reuters
Reading the Runes in the Latest Report on Iran

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

The focus on negotiations at the moment is trying to curtail a future nuclear bomb and at the moment, we are failing to prevent this. If we do not prevent this, we will see what theology does to the Middle East.

How exactly are negotiations failing to prevent a future nuclear bomb when . . . there is no nuclear bomb? That seems like success to me.

[stilldriveem]

Oh I wouldn't worry about it. When John Kerry Chamberlin flys back over waving his piece of paper proclaiming "peace in our time" with the Iranians it'll probably be at least a year before they explode their first test weapon. Perhaps after that he can go back and cede Israel to 'em, because, you know, all the Iranian speaking people there wanting to rejoin the Persion Empire. Hey wait a minute, that sounds oddly familiar, let me get back to you'all........

[simetime]

[quote=jbgusa;38844505]You have no proof that he's taking in any substances legal in Colorado.

Whenever anyone makes statements that are so far off base, it is easy to imagine that they are on something.

See my posts above. The Republicans had to put Iran on notice that they would not be bound by any Obama-nable deal since it is rare for one President to disavow another President's work or recreation.

Even if it is counter-productive to any possible solution to at least a temporary slow down to Iran's nuclear program? Congress has nothing to do with any agreement that the President is trying to achieve. All that this is another feeble attempt to destroy anything that can be thought of as his legacy.

Originally Posted by simetime

If the Dems would have sent Gorby a letter to undermine good old Ronny R, there would have been hell to pay.What do you call the nuclear freeze demonstrations? Yes they were aimed at Andropov but same thought.

It was not! Name one time in American history has a sitting Congress openly wrote anything to a possible foreign adversary against a sitting president.

Where does race come into this? Many opposed SALT II for the same reasons and Carter sure looked white.

Go ahead and play stupid like the rest of them, rather you admit it or not the republicans fueled by a rabid and racist following urged on by Faux and fiends are doing everything to make this president impotent. This goes far above petty partisan politics. We will see how the next White Democratic President is treated and I will bet my paycheck that it will not be as bad as this one was treated

[swbtoo]

[quote=simetime;38917139]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Go ahead and play stupid like the rest of them, rather you admit it or not the republicans fueled by a rabid and racist following urged on by Faux and fiends are doing everything to make this president impotent. This goes far above petty partisan politics. We will see how the next White Democratic President is treated and I will bet my paycheck that it will not be as bad as this one was treated

Hopefully there will never be another president who does as much damage to the foundation and fabric of our country at home and abroad as this one has.

There are many Blacks whom I'd love to see elected to the office of President, so race has absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand. When the left has no arguments left, they resort to the typical name calling and charges of racism. That tactic has gotten very transparent and worn out. It does NOT work anymore.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Goodnight

This is not an end run and this is not a treaty, you cannot reasonably involve congress in direct sensitive negotiations with 7 countries involved. Attempts to break off negotiations that have not been completed is premature and senseless. They will have their opportunity to vote on the removal of sanctions tied to nuclear development in Iran, that is their participation.

*****************

The vote on removal of sanctions will most likely occur after the 2016 election, so why the attempt to circumvent negotiations at this point in time, are destructive relations with Iran the better choice. A not so perfect deal is better than no deal at all.

Any conceivable deal will involve the immediate material easing of sanctions. I believe Obama can find a way to accomplish that by executive order or by fine-tuning the "administration" of existing laws. Thus Congress will get to vote on something that has already happened.

Originally Posted by Goodnight

Yes no question that Saddam Hussein gave inspectors the run around but they did ask for more time before we invaded, 10 years later the better choice is obvious. There will be inspectors inside Iran to check compliance but issues remain.

It's not obvious at all. Saddam was making a joke of the U.N. inspection regime.