OBAMA NEGOTIATING TO LET IRAN GET THE BOMB!

[Whirlaway]

So your logic is "pakistan has it so Iran should have it".................

I am certain Obama has the same dumb think. Just like you, he wants a nuclear capable Iran that will counter America's influence in the region and box Israel.

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.

[nevergaveitathought]

America should not be the world's sole super power...

if iran will just work with me, we will phase it in

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Do you know that their top nuclear scientists studied at MIT. Do you further know that we even helped pay for part of their education through the atomic energy commission? That was when your old buddy Carter was president. If Iran plays by the rules we set out for them, who are we to deny another sovereign country? What would you do if someone told us we couldn't have the bomb? We are, after all, the country that dropped the first and only two in war.

At that time, Iran was a US ally, was ruled by Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and Iranian students were quite common at ALL of the first-rate US colleges and universities, including Harvard and UT Austin from my personal knowledge.

Their antics were quite amusing most of the time. (One TA I knew did NOT like them, saying they expected the TAs to do their homework for them. I didn't have much contact with them.)

Things changed after Ayatollah Khomeini took power.

Things changed drastically after the Iranian "students" broke into the US embassy and took embassy personnel hostage. When Khomeini affirmed their actions, instead of immediately releasing the hostages and apologizing to the US, it became a formal Act of War against the United States of America.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the current sanctions are in place precisely because Iran had not and has not been playing by the rules we set out for them, rules which they agreed to in writing. I am extremely skeptical of any agreement that requires monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as Iran to date has been notably uncooperative with the IAEA.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

America should not be the world's sole super power...

if iran will just work with me, we will phase it in

As a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, did you understand at the time how it would benefit Iran more than any other nation?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

As a supporter of the invasion of Iraq, did you understand at the time how it would benefit Iran more than any other nation?

why assume so much?

if you can find anywhere I was a supporter if the initial invasion...i'll eat my hat

once we were in and committed, that's a different matter...I supported winning and not wasting what had happened, but even there I don't think I would have been upset at a withdrawal, other than my natural feelings of killing bad guys and not leaving ppl in the lurch once we started something

and I understood what you asked, before you did most likely

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

why assume so much?

if you can find anywhere I was a supporter if the initial invasion...i'll eat my hat

once we were in and committed, that's a different matter

and I understood what you asked, before you most likely

So you were against the Iraq were before you were for it! John Kerry, is that you?

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

So you were against the Iraq were before you were for it! John Kerry, is that you?

you are an idiot par excellence

I said I wouldn't have minded withdrawal other than my natural feelings of helping

btw I saw this headline and I thought of you

"ISIS vow to take over Rome and ‘throw homosexuals off of your leaning tower of PIZZA' "

I would even help you should they try it

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

At that time, Iran was a US ally, was ruled by Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and Iranian students were quite common at ALL of the first-rate US colleges and universities, including Harvard and UT Austin from my personal knowledge.

Their antics were quite amusing most of the time.

Yep. If you went to college in the 1970s you probably knew Iranian students and friends. There were thousands of them here at the time. What irks me is how we haven't used those former students (and the very large Iranian expatriate community which settled here but still travels back and forth to visit relatives) as intelligence assets to figure out what has been happening in Iran since the Shah left. We have been constantly behind the curve regarding their nuclear program and other matters. Another example of how the CIA sucks. A bunch of guys hanging out at Langley calling themselves "analysts". Those US-educated Iranians should have been a treasure trove of intel for us.

.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I said I wouldn't have minded withdrawal other than my natural feelings of helping

Below is what you said. Once I quoted you , you edited wtf you said. So were you trying to lie by deceit?

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

once we were in and committed, that's a different matter

See because most folks with half a brain would take this to mean that once we committed troops , you were for the war.

So like I said you were against the war before you were for it.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by WTF

Below is what you said. Once I quoted you , you edited wtf you said. So were you trying to lie by deceit?




See because most folks with half a brain would take this to mean that once we committed troops , you were for the war.

So like I said you were against the war before you were for it.

it was a different matter you idiot, we tore the place up and it had no government....and ppl were getting buzz sawed..so I wouldn't have liked to have left ppl in the lurch...

why am I not surprised you are obtuse?

I didn't edit that out..its there you whatever..you read another post you ....you....whatever. your cranial fluid is seeping out the seams

I refuse to go round and round arguing with you all due to your incomprehension

[WTF]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

it was a different matter you idiot, we tore the place up and it had no government....and ppl were getting buzz sawed..so I wouldn't have liked to have left ppl in the lurch...

n

So I was correct the first time...You were against the war before you were for it.

Damn you like to argue , even when I agree with you.

.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Sidewinder

At that time, Iran was a US ally, was ruled by Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran, and Iranian students were quite common at ALL of the first-rate US colleges and universities, including Harvard and UT Austin from my personal knowledge.

Their antics were quite amusing most of the time. (One TA I knew did NOT like them, saying they expected the TAs to do their homework for them. I didn't have much contact with them.)

Things changed after Ayatollah Khomeini took power.

Things changed drastically after the Iranian "students" broke into the US embassy and took embassy personnel hostage. When Khomeini affirmed their actions, instead of immediately releasing the hostages and apologizing to the US, it became a formal Act of War against the United States of America.

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but the current sanctions are in place precisely because Iran had not and has not been playing by the rules we set out for them, rules which they agreed to in writing. I am extremely skeptical of any agreement that requires monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), as Iran to date has been notably uncooperative with the IAEA.

So we were for them before we were against them, is that right? When their leader was our puppet, shit was cool. They decided they didn't like that and now shit's not cool. God forbid a country decide the way they want to govern themselves.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

So your logic is "pakistan has it so Iran should have it".................

I am certain Obama has the same dumb think. Just like you, he wants a nuclear capable Iran that will counter America's influence in the region and box Israel.

Your logic is we have them and no one else should. What's the fucking difference?

[wellendowed1911]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

So your logic is "pakistan has it so Iran should have it".................

I am certain Obama has the same dumb think. Just like you, he wants a nuclear capable Iran that will counter America's influence in the region and box Israel.

You still have not given me a valid reason or why the peaceful people of Iran shouldn't be allowed to pursue a nuke. As I stated they are surrounded by hostile enemies for all sides. The only logical reason you have provided is the fact that Iran is not an ally of the U.S. or Israel so by default they must have evil intentions. It's a known fact that Israel has nukes but you have no issues with good ole Israel having nukes. The iranians have for the most part been a peaceful nation - they have not sponsored or supported any terrorist against the United States -if you recall it was Iraq who invaded Itan during their war. Iran is not a friend of Isis or Al Queada so tell me again Whirlaway why you and others are making Iran out to be a bigger threat than what they really are ?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You still have not given me a valid reason or why the peaceful people of Iran shouldn't be allowed to pursue a nuke. As I stated they are surrounded by hostile enemies for all sides. The only logical reason you have provided is the fact that Iran is not an ally of the U.S. or Israel so by default they must have evil intentions. It's a known fact that Israel has nukes but you have no issues with good ole Israel having nukes. The iranians have for the most part been a peaceful nation - they have not sponsored or supported any terrorist against the United States -if you recall it was Iraq who invaded Itan during their war. Iran is not a friend of Isis or Al Queada so tell me again Whirlaway why you and others are making Iran out to be a bigger threat than what they really are ?

You obviously were tuned out of the real world in 1983, WE. How many needed to have died in Beirut to make you understand that Iran -- and its agents of terror, e.g., Hamas -- is an enemy to the U.S., WE?