OBAMA NEGOTIATING TO LET IRAN GET THE BOMB!

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Not once, not twice, but many many times..............but like all his pledges (excepting his "transform America" pledge), they are phony statements.

June 5, 2008, in Cairo: "I will continue to be clear on the fact that an Iranian nuclear weapon would be profoundly destabilizing for the entire region.It is strongly in America's interest to prevent such a scenario."

June 8, 2008, to AIPAC: "The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.... Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel."

October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"

November 7, 2008, press conference: "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable. And we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening."

February 27, 2009, speech at Camp Lejeune: "(W)e are focusing on al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing a strategy to use all elements of American power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon; and actively seeking a lasting peace between Israel and the Arab world."

January 27, 2010, State of the Union address: "And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise."

July 1, /2010, at the signing of the Iran Sanctions Act: "There should be no doubt -- the United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

May 19, 2011, speech on the Middle East: "Now, our opposition to Iran's intolerance and Iran's repressive measures, as well as its illicit nuclear program and its support of terror, is well known."

May 22, 2011, in an address to AIPAC: "You also see our commitment to our shared security in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.... So let me be absolutely clear -- we remain committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president: "Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."

November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."

December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."

December 16, 2011, speech to the General Assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism: "Another grave concern -- and a threat to the security of Israel, the United States and the world -- is Iran's nuclear program. And that's why our policy has been absolutely clear: We are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons...and that's why, rest assured, we will take no options off the table. We have been clear."

January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

March 2, 2012, interview with Goldblog: "I... don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say."

March 4, 2012, speech to AIPAC: "I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say That includes all elements of American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any contingency."

March 5, 2012, remarks after meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu: "... I reserve all options, and my policy here is not going to be one of containment. My policy is prevention of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. And as I indicated yesterday in my speech, when I say all options are at the table, I mean it."

March 6, 2012, press conference: "And what I have said is, is that we will not countenance Iran getting a nuclear weapon. My policy is not containment; my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon -- because if they get a nuclear weapon that could trigger an arms race in the region, it would undermine our non-proliferation goals, it could potentially fall into the hands of terrorists.

March 14, 2012, remarks after meeting with David Cameron: "...And as I said in a speech just a couple of weeks ago, I am determined not simply to contain Iran that is in possession of a nuclear weapon; I am determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon -- in part for the reasons that David mentioned... We will do everything we can to resolve this diplomatically, but ultimately, we've got to have somebody on the other side of the table who's taking this seriously."

September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

Get ready America, Obama is about to flip on all his pledges. But this one is the big kahuna.


http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...weapon/262951/

You dipshit. Between 2008 and now, do you think Iran has been sitting there doing nothing. As the program moves forward, things change and how you deal with them changes. The last sentence, we will do what we must to prevent them from obtaining a nuclear weapon, what part of that don't you agree with?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

That isn't why the world doesn't want Iran to have nukes..but is a liberal rationale for letting them go nuclear.

Do you think Iran should have nukes?

I see you avoided the question- Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran and Pakistan has nukes. Keep in mind Pakistan is home to various Al-Queda cells and also to a large Taliban group.. Your answer your question- if I were Iran I can perfectly see why they would want to develop a nuke- they are surrounded by enemies.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I see you avoided the question- Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran and Pakistan has nukes. Keep in mind Pakistan is home to various Al-Queda cells and also to a large Taliban group.. Your answer your question- if I were Iran I can perfectly see why they would want to develop a nuke- they are surrounded by enemies.

And Pakistan isn't even party to the NPT that he loves so much. This article points out perfectly why we put up with Pakistan having nukes. If you don't want to bother reading it, it's because we need them as a staging area.

http://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-U-...t-not-Pakistan

[Whirlaway]

Like I said, and as evidenced by your own posts, the American left thinks Iran is being a responsible rational nation state that should be allowed to go nuclear. Obama is the chief spokesperson for the American left ideology.

It is no surprise that Obama is working (secretly) to let Iran go nuclear. Despite his very public statements to the contrary.

I am glad you agree with me in my assessment of Obama's duplicitous dealings.


Iran is a danger to American interests and lives; especially if they get the bomb. Why a patriotic American would support Iran going nuclear is beyond reason.

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

I see you avoided the question- Pakistan is far more unstable than Iran and Pakistan has nukes. Keep in mind Pakistan is home to various Al-Queda cells and also to a large Taliban group.. Your answer your question- if I were Iran I can perfectly see why they would want to develop a nuke- they are surrounded by enemies.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Like I said, and as evidenced by your own posts, the American left thinks Iran is being a responsible rational nation state that should be allowed to go nuclear. Obama is the chief spokesperson for the American left ideology.

It is no surprise that Obama is working (secretly) to let Iran go nuclear. Despite his very public statements to the contrary.

I am glad you agree with me in my assessment of Obama's duplicitous dealings.


Iran is a danger to American interests and lives; especially if they get the bomb. Why a patriotic American would support Iran going nuclear is beyond reason.

They're already nuclear, you idiot. They started trying to produce fissile material over 10 years ago. You seriously don't think we couldn't deal with Iran if we had to? I'd be more worried about Russia or China. Why a patriotic American is foaming at the mouth to get us involved in yet another conflict, is beyond reason. It just came out that the deal is for 10 years and would reward Iran by easing restrictions for good behavior. If they don't use it for arms, why shouldn't they be able to use it for energy? It's not like the world won't be watching them.

[Jackie S]

Anybody that would want a Fascist Theocracy that will kill you in the name of their "God" to have Nuclear Weapons processes a unique combination of stupidity and naïveté.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Anybody that would want a Fascist Theocracy that will kill you in the name of their "God" to have Nuclear Weapons processes a unique combination of stupidity and naïveté.

We have a winner......
Ding, ding, ding !

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Anybody that would want a Fascist Theocracy that will kill you in the name of their "God" to have Nuclear Weapons processes a unique combination of stupidity and naïveté.

Pakistan has them...

[wellendowed1911]

As UnderConstruction and I have stated- Pakistan is a far more radical nation than Iran. And if you do research Iran as a Shiite nation is an ideological enemy of ISIS and Al-Queada- both ISIS and Al-Queada don't view Shiites as "real" muslims and they kill shiites basically for being Shiite.
So why are none of you guys seeing the dangers of Pakistan having nukes- which was the country that basically was a safe haven for OBL and has thousands of extremist Taliban and Al-queada groups that call it their home. Why you add it- compare the Pakistan Taliban to Afghanistan's Taliban- Pakistan's group is far more brutal and radical. I fear the fact of Pakistan having a nuke over Iran obtaining a nuke any day of the week.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Pakistan has them...

And India insures Pakistan toes the line, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

And India insures Pakistan toes the line, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

Until they don't...

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

As UnderConstruction and I have stated- Pakistan is a far more radical nation than Iran. And if you do research Iran as a Shiite nation is an ideological enemy of ISIS and Al-Queada- both ISIS and Al-Queada don't view Shiites as "real" muslims and they kill shiites basically for being Shiite.
So why are none of you guys seeing the dangers of Pakistan having nukes- which was the country that basically was a safe haven for OBL and has thousands of extremist Taliban and Al-queada groups that call it their home. Why you add it- compare the Pakistan Taliban to Afghanistan's Taliban- Pakistan's group is far more brutal and radical. I fear the fact of Pakistan having a nuke over Iran obtaining a nuke any day of the week.

Muslims are muslims to them. Don't try and bring nuance into it. Much rather that Pakistan didn't have nukes than Iran. Rather neither of them had them but if I have to choose, it's Pakistan.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Until they don't...

Parity guarantees they will. In the event there is a full scale exchange, both countries will then be w/o nuclear weapons: again, parity!

[Yssup Rider]

Who fucking thinks a full exchange is even possible? Between neighboring nations? Between anybody?

You still play with GIJoes, IBIdiot?

Holy underwear!

Oh, and we have a number of new and recently new posters here. Why don't you explain what your pet names (paragraphs) for other posters mean? I'm guessing they dont have a lot of golems (improper use) in Arkansas.

And Old Thumpers.

Or inbred chimps.

Fascinating, isn't he?

[Whirlaway]

The Associated Press reports:

Edging toward a historic compromise, the U.S. and Iran reported progress Monday on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran’s nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.