GOP Senators send a letter to Iran

[shanm]

Originally Posted by lustylad

This one finally made me throw up.

I believe you've been vomiting on these threads long before I ever got here. Every thing you post has just as much coherence and logic as a bucket of bile and horseshit mixed together.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Who decided to take land from Palestine and place all the Jewish refugees slap dab in the middle of millions of Arabs after WW2? The UK and US were major proponents of the UN plan that made that possible. Perhaps we should have thought that out a little better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandato...gration_quotas

Speaking of bile and vomit, that's what I feel when I agree with OverCompensation. But he's partly right. However, IMHO, they thought it out brilliantly. There is now a ready excuse for permanent war. That insures a market for oil and armaments. Good for business, it is.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

The Omuslim Brotherhood wants Iran to have Nukes...

Why? A reasoned opinion why. Not some 'he's a muslim' crap. A real reason. I'll give you a hint; there isn't one.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Speaking of bile and vomit, that's what I feel when I agree with OverCompensation. But he's partly right. However, IMHO, they thought it out brilliantly. There is now a ready excuse for permanent war. That insures a market for oil and armaments. Good for business, it is.

If that was there reason, then you're correct, they performed the task brilliantly. Of course, most things always come down to money. Take a look at this letter as an example. Cotton sends this letter on its way, making war far more likely than it was the day before he sent it. And then the very next day he goes to a conference for defense contractors. Talk about brazen. They don't even try and hide it anymore. If you look at who benefits financially, nine times out of ten you will find who is behind it.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Maybe we should have thought about that before we decided to take the palestinian's land after ww2 and plop a country right down in the middle of everyone who hates them. How smart was that?

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Who decided to take land from Palestine and place all the Jewish refugees slap dab in the middle of millions of Arabs after WW2? The UK and US were major proponents of the UN plan that made that possible. Perhaps we should have thought that out a little better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandato...gration_quotas

Don't make us laugh, undercunt. That's not what happened. Nobody plopped a country down in Palestine. The British tried to withdraw in a way that recognized the rights of all residents. Your own wiki link tells the story. The UN voted 33-10 in favor of a partition plan on November 29, 1946. The Jews were already there. More than 550,000 were living in the Mandate Territory in 1945, before refugees started to arrive in large numbers.

Question - why do you make up your own history all the time? Whether it's Truman dropping the A-bomb or how Israel was born, you hallucinate the story to fit your libtarded revisionist views. You are extremely fucked up. Get help.

.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Don't make us laugh, undercunt. That's not what happened. Nobody plopped a country down in Palestine. The British tried to withdraw in a way that recognized the rights of all residents. Your own wiki link tells the story. The UN voted 33-10 in favor of a partition plan on November 29, 1946. The Jews were already there. More than 550,000 were living in the Mandate Territory in 1945, before refugees started to arrive in large numbers.

Question - why do you make up your own history all the time? Whether it's Truman dropping the A-bomb or how Israel was born, you hallucinate the story to fit your libtarded revisionist views. You are extremely fucked up. Get help.

.

What exactly did I make up? They most assuredly did create the nation of Israel right in the middle of millions of Arabs. Oh, the UN voted, well, everything is ok then. Jesus, how simple it must be to have a one track mind. Winston Churchill, yes that Winston Churchill, gave Shareif Hussein's son, Abdullah, 35K acres of land for transjordan in 1921. The British actually limited the number of jewish settlers, in violation of the mandate. And unlike you, I'll provide sources. After the war, the British REFUSED to allow sanctuary in Palestine for those who had escaped the death chambers. Once again, america and its western allies, sticking our noses where they don't belong. This is why the arab world doesn't care for us. We shoehorned Israel in and have continued to meddle for decades since.

"The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) that stated “the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.” By 1949, however, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews." (sound like the rights of all residents were a concern?)


"The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s Final Solution. After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain's Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

what other choice do we have?.... We can't simply fight our way out of every disagreement....

Originally Posted by timpage

I don't want Iran to have nuclear capability either. But, attacking Iran in a way meaningful enough to thwart their nuclear ambitions for the foreseeable future isn't the answer....

You're both full of shit, as usual. You posit a totally false choice. Who says the only other option is war? As Netanyahu put it, "the alternative to this bad deal is a much better deal."



The Fatal Flaw in Obama’s Dealings With Iran

Taking a collaborative approach to negotiating with bad actors always turns out badly. Better to coerce them.


By Douglas J. Feith
March 10, 2015 7:06 p.m. ET


"Extraordinarily reasonable,” President Obama called it in an interview aired on Sunday, referring to the multiparty deal being negotiated on Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. When the talks began, Mr. Obama said it was “unacceptable” for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. Now it isn’t clear whether that is actually his view.

On Capitol Hill, distrust of the president is intense, fueled by resentment that he doesn’t intend to submit the nuclear deal for congressional approval. Forty-seven Republican senators on Monday sent a letter to Tehran explaining that a future U.S. president or Congress could easily revoke an agreement not validated by this Congress. Mr. Obama responded testily, accusing the signers of making “common cause with the hard-liners in Iran.”

Under the pending deal, Iran can maintain large nuclear facilities and continue enriching uranium. Mr. Obama says this is fine because Iran would have to allow inspections of specified nuclear sites. In response, also on TV Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “I do not trust inspections with totalitarian regimes. What I’m suggesting is that you contract Iran’s nuclear program, so there’s less to inspect.”

The key, in Mr. Netanyahu’s view, is to pressure Iran to dismantle major facilities. That way, if Tehran eventually decides to abandon the deal, the regime would have to work much more than a year to produce a nuclear weapon. In addition, Mr. Netanyahu says, sanctions should remain in place until Iran stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. Mr. Obama says such demands are unrealistic. They would kill the talks, he asserts, and leave only a military option.

But at the heart of the Obama-Netanyahu dispute—and of the president’s clash with Congress—is not diplomacy versus war. It’s the difference between cooperative diplomacy and coercive diplomacy.

By taking a cooperative approach, Mr. Obama insists, the U.S. and others can persuade Iran’s ruling ayatollahs to play by rules that all parties voluntarily accept. In contrast, the coercive option, which Mr. Netanyahu favors, assumes that Iran will remain hostile, dishonest and dangerous. The coercive approach sees Iran’s nuclear program as a symptom of the hostility between Iran and the West, but not as the source of the hostility. Coercion means America and its friends would use trade and financial restrictions, diplomatic isolation and other methods (short of military strikes) to pressure a resistant Iran into changing its behavior.

When Mr. Obama says the Israeli leader has offered “no viable alternative” to the deal being negotiated, he is denying that a coercive option exists. But Mr. Netanyahu’s point is that we can have one if we try. U.S. officials would need to exert leadership by highlighting Iranian threats, prescribing ways to limit them and soliciting other countries’ support.

There are two major problems with Mr. Obama’s cooperative approach. The first is the nature of Iran’s regime. The second is the history of attempts to constrain bad actors through cooperative approaches such as arms control and peace accords.

The Iranian regime is theocratic and revolutionary. It came to power in 1979 on a wave of extremist religious ideology and remains committed to exporting its revolution. Its leaders despise liberalism and democracy. They particularly hate Western respect for the rights of women and homosexuals. The regime remains in power through torture and murder of its domestic critics. It makes frequent use of public executions—the numbers have increased lately even though President Hasan Rouhani is commonly called a reformer.

Abroad, the Iranian regime acts as a rogue. Its agents and terrorist proxies have committed bombings and other murders in countries including France, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Iraq. A U.S. court convicted Iranian agents of plotting in 2011 to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. by bombing a Washington, D.C., restaurant. Iranian officials foment hatred of the U.S. and Israel and call for the annihilation of both.

Iranian leaders have a long record of shameless dishonesty. Their aid to the tyrannical Assad regime has been massive since the Syrian civil war began, but they routinely deny it. And they make a practice of lying to United Nations weapons inspectors. Commenting on how the inspectors have repeatedly been surprised by what Iran hides, Olli Heinonen, former deputy director-general of the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency, told this newspaper in 2013, “If there is no undeclared installation today . . . it will be the first time in 20 years that Iran doesn’t have one.”


Iran is a bad actor, and history teaches that constraining bad actors through arms control and peace accords is a losing bet. The arms-control approach is to invite bad actors to sign legal agreements. This produces signing ceremonies, where political leaders can act as if there’s nobody here but us peaceable, law-abiding global citizens. The deal makers get to celebrate their accords at least until the bad actors inevitably violate them.

Nazi Germany violated the Versailles Treaty. The Soviet Union violated the Biological Weapons Convention, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, various nuclear-arms treaties and other international agreements. The Palestine Liberation Organization violated the Oslo Accords. North Korea violated the Agreed Framework.

Patterns emerge from this history. When leaders of democratic countries extract promises of good behavior from bad-actor regimes, those democratic leaders reap political rewards. They are hailed as peacemakers. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was cheered when he returned from Munich in 1938 with “peace in our time.” These leaders have a stake in their deals looking good. When those deals are violated, the “peacemakers” often challenge the evidence. If the evidence is clear, they dismiss the violations as unimportant. When the importance is undeniable, they argue that there aren’t any good options for confronting the violators.

In the end, the bad actors often pay little or nothing for their transgressions. And even if the costs are substantial, they are bearable. Just ask Russia’s Vladimir Putin, or Syria’s Bashar Assad or North Korea’s Kim Jong Un.

The Obama administration has wedded itself to a cooperative policy toward Iran. The White House rejects the coercive approach as not viable. But if Iran violates its deal with us, won’t our response have to be coercive? President Obama insists that his policy is the only realistic one. In doing so, he is showing either that he is naïve and uninformed about the relevant history or that he no longer considers an Iranian nuclear weapon “unacceptable.”

.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

What exactly did I make up? They most assuredly did create the nation of Israel right in the middle of millions of Arabs.... The British actually limited the number of jewish settlers, in violation of the mandate. And unlike you, I'll provide sources. After the war, the British REFUSED to allow sanctuary in Palestine for those who had escaped the death chambers. Once again, america and its western allies, sticking our noses where they don't belong. This is why the arab world doesn't care for us. We shoehorned Israel in and have continued to meddle for decades since.

"The British went further and placed restrictions on Jewish land purchases in what remained of Palestine, contradicting the provision of the Mandate (Article 6) that stated “the Administration of Palestine...shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish Agency...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not acquired for public purposes.” By 1949, however, the British had allotted 87,500 acres of the 187,500 acres of cultivable land to Arabs and only 4,250 acres to Jews." (sound like the rights of all residents were a concern?)


"The gates of Palestine remained closed for the duration of the war, stranding hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe, many of whom became victims of Hitler’s Final Solution. After the war, the British refused to allow the survivors of the Nazi nightmare to find sanctuary in Palestine. On June 6, 1946, President Truman urged the British government to relieve the suffering of the Jews confined to displaced persons camps in Europe by immediately accepting 100,000 Jewish immigrants. Britain's Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, replied sarcastically that the United States wanted displaced Jews to immigrate to Palestine “because they did not want too many of them in New York.”

You look stupider and stupider with every post, undercunt. If the Brits were fighting so hard to keep Jews out of Palestine, as you and your sources claim, then how can anyone say they were responsible for creating the Jewish state? In 1947 they just wanted to wash their hands and get the fuck out. Try not to contradict yourself each time you post, dipshit.

.

[JD Barleycorn]

They don't have a delivery device? Is that what you said? Here is a picture of just one delivery device the Iranians have:



It is called a Boeing 747. Iran has two of them flying cargo. Unless someone knew that a device was on board there is no good reason to shoot one down. We have no current restrictions against Iranian planes flying into the US.

[JD Barleycorn]

Yep, Lusty Lad has you. After the terrorist attacks on British troops the British just wanted out. You know the British didn't own Palenstine any more than anyone else. Why can't the Jews come back to their ancestral homeland? They had just as much right as anyone else.
Better save your ire for France and Britain who created by the stroke of a pen; Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, TransJordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

They don't have a delivery device? Is that what you said? Here is a picture of just one delivery device the Iranians have:



It is called a Boeing 747. Iran has two of them flying cargo. Unless someone knew that a device was on board there is no good reason to shoot one down. We have no current restrictions against Iranian planes flying into the US.

I don't know if it's ingesting foreign substances or plumbing backup, but some people just have "short term" memory .....

.... while others just ignore reality in an attempt to appear "in control"!

9/11/2001
KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did you committee on international opertions and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: Absolutely. Absolutely.

We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding."

By the "man" bringing you a "deal with Iran"........ asleep at the wheel again.

[Whirlaway]

the Cotton letter is nothing akin to Democrat collaboration with unfriendly regimes. An open letter explaining our constitutional system is not the same as advising foreign leaders combined with the probable passing of sensitive or classified information. The 1980's Democrat dealings with the Soviet, Cuban and Nicaraguan regimes could reasonably be described as treasonous.

[Budman]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

So they could just put them on a boat and float on over, right? You've been watching too many movies. Suitcase or portable nukes, don't really exist. Do you honestly think they are going to smuggle a nuclear device across the border? Read this article. You really need some enlightening on how difficult it would be to pull something like that off. It would take them a minimum of a year inside this country and that's assuming everything goes off without a hitch and no one notices what they're doing. Not mention millions of dollars.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/16/...-the-backyard/

Well that settles it. We know Iran doesn't have the money. After all we're talking millions, right. On top of that it would take at least a year. There is absolutely no way they would invest that much time and effort into something they have been talking about for decades, right?

Jesus fucking Christ, do you even think about what you type before you hit the submit button?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by rioseco

The answer to you first question is, No !
After electing Obama the Bastard Boy King twice, there is nothing to make us look stupider in the eyes of this world.

Actually, had YOU written the letter, you could have made them an offer you couldn't understand.

AnD, the wold would realize that the U.S. lags behind in both education and mental health care.

ignorant fuck.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

the Cotton letter is nothing akin to Democrat collaboration with unfriendly regimes. An open letter explaining our constitutional system is not the same as advising foreign leaders combined with the probable passing of sensitive or classified information. The 1980's Democrat dealings with the Soviet, Cuban and Nicaraguan regimes could reasonably be described as treasonous.

No, it's fucking treason.

You've squealed more about less, whore-LIE-turd. EVERY FUCKING DAY.