Obama letting Iran have nukes...maybe Rudy was right (million, broadcast, children)

[Crossfire600]

Great piece!

Obama Race to Chaos

It appears that Obama was confused. His administration is the JV Team.

The "Arab Army" should be interesting. I can't see commanders giving up command of their troops for a greater good. Add to that all the American weapons ISIS has compliments of Obama and you have the makings for a very ugly war.

Obama is solely responsible for this cluster.

[Goinback2011]

Originally Posted by Crossfire600

Great piece!

Obama Race to Chaos

It appears that Obama was confused. His administration is the JV Team.

The "Arab Army" should be interesting. I can't see commanders giving up command of their troops for a greater good. Add to that all the American weapons ISIS has compliments of Obama and you have the makings for a very ugly war.

Obama is solely responsible for this cluster.

The tribes in Yemen are also the thankful recipients of $500M in American arms from Obama.

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by Goinback2011

The tribes in Yemen are also the thankful recipients of $500M in American arms from Obama.

Originally Posted by Crossfire600

Great piece!

Obama Race to Chaos

It appears that Obama was confused. His administration is the JV Team.

The "Arab Army" should be interesting. I can't see commanders giving up command of their troops for a greater good. Add to that all the American weapons ISIS has compliments of Obama and you have the makings for a very ugly war.

Obama is solely responsible for this cluster.

What a boondoggle.

[Dockside]

You know we are getting close to a bad deal now. Obama's talking heads were all over the news talkies yesterday and this morning talking up what a wonderful deal this is and dismissing all opposition as sour grapes or veiled hints of racism.

[swbtoo]

Originally Posted by Dockside

You know we are getting close to a bad deal now. Obama's talking heads were all over the news talkies yesterday and this morning talking up what a wonderful deal this is and dismissing all opposition as sour grapes or veiled hints of racism.

Looks like the talks have hit a stumbling block...maybe the US plan is to yield to Iran's demands, just so the deal will happen at just about any cost, and that's the reason for the talking heads gushing all over about what a great deal this is.

For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons program. But on Sunday Iran’s deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/wo...deal.html?_r=0

[florida.bob]

It's funny to listen to Boehner say the "sanctions are working" while we know the centrifuge numbers in Iran went from about 150(which Bush etal rejected) to the 6000 now. Yep, that the Republican idea of a "working" influence.

[PullMyFinger]

Traitor Obama might put controls in place to hamstring the next president in regards to the Iranian nuclear issue, but he can't stop him from bombing them back to the stone age where they belong.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by ericsami

Maybe before jumping to conclusions you should examine the false facts
you are premising your entire analysis upon.

Iran has said repeatedly it is not building nuclear weapons.

all western intelligence Agencies have said Iran does not have a Militarized Nuclear program.

These are facts and not disputed by anybody.

The negotiations are not over whether Iran can build nuclear weapons. The negotiations are over how much peaceful nuclear engineering capacity Iranians are allowed to have by the west. In Exchange for Iranian concessions the west will lift sanctions.

There has been no negotiation over building Nuclear weapons. because It is clear for the west and for Iran that under the NPT regime no country is allowed to build Nuclear weapons.

Correct.

Goddam, someone got it right.

What frightens the hell out of Americans is that of the dual-reactors at Bushwehr, one will power a series of desalination plants along the Persian Gulf/Arabian Sea.

That water will be piped to the Iranian Plateau. Before this current Inter-Glacial Period, and up through about 7,000 BCE, the Plateau was virtual Garden of Eden. Now, it's a wasteland for the most part, but water will rejuvenate it, allowing Iranians to expand their agricultural production for the benefit of the world.

Iran will be able to grow saw grass for ethanol, but that requires an extraordinary amount water, which the dual-reactors and the desalinization plants would provide.

Iran will also have water for natural gas and oil refining, specifically for refining natural gas into fertilizers and refining oils into more advanced petro-chemicals, like feed stocks for pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, food, and plastics and such.

And all of that reduces Iran's natural gas and oil consumption, reducing natural gas and oil prices for the world.

Petro-Chemically...

Mircea

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by PullMyFinger

Traitor Obama might put controls in place to hamstring the next president in regards to the Iranian nuclear issue, but he can't stop him from bombing them back to the stone age where they belong.

And they belong there because why?

They won't kiss your ass after you illegally overthrew their government?

Or because you set up the SAVAK to murder Iranians engaged in Free Speech, Free Assembly, Free Press etc etc etc?

Or because you stole all of their wealth and profits, exporting them to the US where you benefited?

Or because you started a war against Iran by trying to instigate a coup in 1979?

Yeah, instigating a coup in Iran to have the military overthrow the Shah and seize power before Khomeini arrives is a violation of international law.

Originally Posted by southward bound

For months, Iran tentatively agreed that it would send a large portion of its stockpile of uranium to Russia, where it would not be accessible for use in any future weapons program. But on Sunday Iran’s deputy foreign minister made a surprise comment to Iranian reporters, ruling out an agreement that involved giving up a stockpile that Iran has spent years and billions of dollars to amass.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/30/wo...deal.html?_r=0

Good for Iran for not backing down.

It's Iran's right to have a nuclear energy program. Such a program has enormous economic benefits for everyone, including you, personally.

Originally Posted by Goodnight

Time limits, extent of the inspections, lifting of sanctions, number of centrifuges and seven countries attempting to come to an agreement, yes it's very complicated.

They already have sanctions in place unrelated to their nuclear activity, they are not treaties.

They aren't treaties?

Well, duh, even the dumbass Iraqis wouldn't be stupid enough to enter into an agreement that financially harms them.

Originally Posted by Icy Tea

So he wants Iran to have nukes but doesn't want American citizens to own fire arms. Simple Barack. He's gone full retard.

No, the retards are the ones screaming, "Nuke!" on internet forums.

Let's be real here, someone farted, you liked the way it smelled, and you think it smells like Nukes!®

Originally Posted by southward bound

The deal can't be all that 'intricate', since latest news is that it's going to be verbal and loosely framed.

This can't be good but may be done to avoid calling it an official treaty.

It's, not a treaty.....

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

C) Spare me the propaganda. Iran who's NPT participation is in question, has expressed nuclear genocide against another UN Charter member, Israel.

McCan't threatened Iran.

The US has nukes.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Iran cannot make these claims without repercussions.

So, then applying your standard, what repercussions should the US suffer?

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

A) Israel's alleged nuclear program is for defensive deterrence, ...

Fail.

It order for anything to be a deterrence, it has to be known or visible or made aware.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

B) Iran's nuclear ambitions and its Persian Empire fantasies is causing a security dilemma to occur in the Arab bloc.

A false security dilemma.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Your living a pipe dream. Khamenei, the political and religious leader of the state, has threatened the destruction of the U.S and Israel.

"Imam glioft een rezhim-e isliglialgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye nizgar malr
havad."


"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".


Three regimes that vanished were mentioned: the USSR, the Shah, and Saddam.

Yeah, context is important.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

While the U.S was convincing Iran to be a 'wonderful asset' , they created virtual mock naval trainings of destroying U.S Navy fleets. And you want to appease and make nice?

And the US has never conducted mock invasions of Iran?

Wrong.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

I take these threats very seriously, especially a country who is know for terrorism sponsorship.

The US has sponsored terrorists. The fact that the US disingenuously refers to its terrorists as "freedom fighters" doesn't alter the fact that they are terrorists.

And Israeli terrorism?

Suppressed Evidence
Intentionally failing to use information suspected of being relevant and significant is committing the fallacy of suppressed evidence. This fallacy usually occurs when the information counts against one’s own conclusion.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

You're apologism and whitewashing of Iranian responsibility and wrongdoings is candidly remarkable.

History starts with British intervention and meddling Iran, not yesterday.

That would be another example of suppressed evidence.

Your white-washing of history and the wrong-doings of the US and Britain as they relate to Iran and the people of Iran are remarkably disgusting.

Originally Posted by BMoreJuice

Picking the enemy over an ally while the enemy produces the means to carry out its threats. Is that what you are projecting?

An ally doesn't spy on you and then sell the collected data to your sworn enemy.

Israel spied on the US and has sold the data to the Soviets and Russians in exchange for exit-visas for Soviet/Russian Jews.

Y'all remember the photos of Russian subs sitting docked in port?

Israel spied on the US (and Britain) to obtain communication codes to intercept US communications between US Embassies and military units and the Capitol.

During the course of that espionage, the Israelis discovered how and why the US and Britain were able to located and track Soviet/Russian subs.

In part, the reason related to a design flaw in the propeller, but that wasn't the only characteristic used.

The Israelis gave that data to the Soviets/Russians, who then promptly scrapped their entire fleet, since they were now aware of how and why the US/Brits could locate and track their subs.

That puts all 317 Million Americans at risk......still....still at risk.....at risk for the unforeseeable future.


Name another US ally that has put all 317 Million American men, women and children at risk.

We'll wait.............tick tock tick tock.....

Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge

Israel will not strike if there is a deal.

Israel will never strike.



It's called the Laws of Physics.

Israel doesn't even have the assets to conduct a strike of any kind.

I'll tell you what, why don't you determine the number of DGZs and get back to us, okay?

Then calculate fuel consumption rates.

Can't do that either?

Surely you can calculate DCAS(t) or D sub-a (t), right?

No?

Then you should probably leave that to the big boys and refrain from engaging in the bomb Iran rhetoric.

It's real life, not a video game....

Mircea

[spectator11040]

The Obama policy in the Middle East has been not only incoherent, as the experts put it. I would add the words "naive" and "nonsensical" to describe it.
And this has been going on for six years.
Right of the starting gate in 2009, Obama refused to support the "green revolution" of the Iranian people against the repressive radical regime.
At that time he also insisted on a "settlement freeze' as a prerequisite to negotiations. That's something the Palestinians didn't even call for! It effectively put negotiations into a deep freeze.
This was followed by a long series of serious missteps: the bombing of Libya which turned ii into a chaotic state ripe for terror groups, the call for the downfall of ally Mubarak of Egypt and support of the Muslim Brotherhood, the current refusal to support the El-Sisi government causing it to turn toward Russia, the refusal in 2011 to militarily supply the Free Syrian army, the total evacuation of US troops from Iraq leaving a vacuum for ISIS, and now the current de facto alliance with Iran in what is now the Iranian puppet state of Iraq.
Quite a record! As I said, the words incoherent, naive, and nonsensical all apply.

But the BIGGEST mistake is right on the horizon: the capitulation to the Iranian regime which will give it "breakout" capability to manufacture a nuclear weapon.