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.
If so..Then Bi Bi is doing precisely what the Extremists are doing in Iran..scream out HATERED!! But just like Bibi and Iranian Extreme wing..Their followers are dying off..populations is Younger and do NOT believe nor do they participate is such HATE!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
LOLZ. Have you ever heard of P5+1? They negotiated and approved the Iran deal.
I guess the Iranians pulled a fast one on the world powers . . . . When you watch, listen to or read the Fringe Media, they make it sound like it was a bilateral negotiation between US and Iran.
Mick
It appears my friend political rhetoric;s do NOT realize what brought Iran to table to begin with..IF they negate THIS agreement..GONE is the Wrold's support right along with ability to have ability to monitor their development of Nuclear Power!!! But hey..Can;t talk to stupid I guess
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
None of them particularly care if Israel is wiped out or will lift so much as a finger to stop the Persian hordes from overrunning the middle east.
DISAGREE..In fact you are so way OFF BASE!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I would call it, let me think... how about "not surrendering our way of life"? Yeah, that has a nice ring to it.
"The Iran deal is an example of us not surrendering our way of life." Yep, works for me.
I think the simpler minds aren't for such a deal because they tend the see the world in black-and-white terms. "You're either with us or you're against us." And then they charge into war like cowboys.
The global society we live in now requires more sophistication, more nuance. I don't know the details of the deal itself to comment, but I do know that Israel's militaristic approach to dealing with international relations hasn't solved anything.
Perhaps diplomacy is the better way to control our enemies.
Those set against it is 1) purely political rhetoric of hatreds 2) ASSume Monitoring is inadequate 3) refuse to accept anything BO and his Administrations does!! So hey...If BO says sky is Blue..Political talking heads would say..He's not only wrong BUT blah bah!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
It's so bizarre there's still people who think this. I understand the initial fear of him, but with corporate profits surging, Obama about to pass Reagan for second term job creation, and wise military maneuvers, he seems to respect his country enough to get its economy, social liberties, and foreign policy going in the right direction again.
I think the simpler minds aren't for such a deal because they tend the see the world in black-and-white terms. "You're either with us or you're against us." And then they charge into war like cowboys.
The global society we live in now requires more sophistication, more nuance. I don't know the details of the deal itself to comment, but I do know that Israel's militaristic approach to dealing with international relations hasn't solved anything.
Perhaps diplomacy is the better way to control our enemies.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that for a foreigner like yours truly, it sure seems symptomatic for the US worldview that most confrontations must end with a clear winner and a clear loser. Multitudes of lawsuits, two-party system, jingoist foreign policy views, communities defining themselves by associating with sports teams... Not all, clearly, but a sizable portion.
Then allow me to introduce you to Xi Jinping, Francois Hollande, David Cameron, Angela Merkel, and Vladimir Putin.
Exactly as I have been pointing out. This was not a 'one nation' deal, although the US of A took a decided lead.
As I mentioned in one of other dozen or so threads about this subject, I well recall 'conservatives' ('hawks', back then, which included both Democratic and Republican parties) being against any deal with the Soviet Union about limiting, and destroying, nuclear weapons. Those Presidents pushed on (including President Reagan; I guess he is now a "RINO"), and it has benefited the world. Back then, they argued that the Soviets could 'not be trusted'. I believe it was Mr. Reagan who first coined the phrase "Trust, but verify", although I could be mistaken.
Find my other posting about this subject. It is (if I do say it) full of wisdom due to experience.
Exactly as I have been pointing out. This was not a 'one nation' deal, although the US of A took a decided lead.
As I mentioned in one of other dozen or so threads about this subject, I well recall 'conservatives' ('hawks', back then, which included both Democratic and Republican parties) being against any deal with the Soviet Union about limiting, and destroying, nuclear weapons. Those Presidents pushed on (including President Reagan; I guess he is now a "RINO"), and it has benefited the world. Back then, they argued that the Soviets could 'not be trusted'. I believe it was Mr. Reagan who first coined the phrase "Trust, but verify", although I could be mistaken.
Find my other posting about this subject. It is (if I do say it) full of wisdom due to experience.
Interestingly, the INF treaty inspections were limited to specified sites only.
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.
