OBAMA NEGOTIATING TO LET IRAN GET THE BOMB!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

You are sadly mistaken- look here- if you want to re- write history- please add a disclaimer that these are your findings and are not backed up by facts. I am giving you real history and you keep feeding me hypothetical bullshit.
What was Iran's role in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Did Iran or Iraq start the Iran-Iraq conflict? What ties have Iran had to 9-11? What ties do Iran have to Al-Queada? Are the Afghanistan Taliban friends or enemies of Iran? What connections does Iran have with ISIS?

Keep spreading your filthy lies!!!!!!!

You are a one of Odumbo's "#Grubered" minions, WE. As such you have no knowledge of truth or facts, WE, and you didn't proffer even one struggle in that region that didn't involve Iran. It was the conflict between Iraq and Iran that prompted Saddam to invade Kuwait. Iran currently has troops in Syria.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a one of Odumbo's "#Grubered" minions, WE. As such you have no knowledge of truth or facts, WE, and you didn't proffer even one struggle in that region that didn't involve Iran. It was the conflict between Iraq and Iran that prompted Saddam to invade Kuwait. Iran currently has troops in Syria.

Are you IN Syria? How the fuck do you know.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Are you IN Syria? How the fuck do you know.

Iranians are in Syria, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion. Pay attention and you'll continue to learn, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.

[UnderConstruction]

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...r-deal/386507/

[I B Hankering]

.

[UnderConstruction]

http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-c...ent-peace-iran

Why Israel doesn't want us to have peace with Iran

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-c...ent-peace-iran

Why Israel doesn't want us to have peace with Iran

Chomsky's on to something here. The only part I really disagree with is how he implies that Obama is not beholding to the rich elites that the Republicans are. I'm convinced he is. But he is right when he basically implies that peace in the Middle East would be bad for business.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Chomsky's on to something here. The only part I really disagree with is how he implies that Obama is not beholding to the rich elites that the Republicans are. I'm convinced he is. But he is right when he basically implies that peace in the Middle East would be bad for business.

True. Both parties are very much in the pocket of rich elites. They're just beholding to different rich elites. Thanks for actually reading it and putting forth a measured response. Doesn't happen a lot in here.

[Whirlaway]

The Obama betrayal(s) is facilitation of Iran going nuclear with Obama's help:

• In June 2010 the administration pushed, and the U.N. Security Council adopted, Resolution 1929, which “demands” that “Iran halt all enrichment activities.” But now the administration will endorse Iran’s “right” to an industrial-scale enrichment capability—a right, incidentally, that the administration denies to South Korea.
  
  
• Resolution 1929 also states that Iran is “prohibited from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles.” But Iran continues to manufacture and test ballistic missiles, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei demands they be mass produced, and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator is adamant that “we are not ready to discuss this matter with any foreigner.” All of which gives the lie to weak State Department protestations that a deal will halt the ballistic missile program.
  
  
• In December 2013, Mr. Obama personally assured a pro-Israel audience in Washington that, when it came to diplomacy, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Now unnamed administration officials are selling the line that “the alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections, and an Iran ever-closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon.” In other words, virtually any deal is better than no deal.
  
  
  
• In March 2012, Mr. Obama insisted “my policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.” He has said as much on some 20 other occasions. But the deal being contemplated now, with a sunset provision that will ultimately give Iran the right to enrich in whatever quantities and to whatever levels it wants, is neither prevention nor containment.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-ste...ats-1425340271

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The Obama betrayal(s) is facilitation of Iran going nuclear with Obama's help:

• In June 2010 the administration pushed, and the U.N. Security Council adopted, Resolution 1929, which “demands” that “Iran halt all enrichment activities.” But now the administration will endorse Iran’s “right” to an industrial-scale enrichment capability—a right, incidentally, that the administration denies to South Korea.
  
  
• Resolution 1929 also states that Iran is “prohibited from undertaking any activity related to ballistic missiles.” But Iran continues to manufacture and test ballistic missiles, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei demands they be mass produced, and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator is adamant that “we are not ready to discuss this matter with any foreigner.” All of which gives the lie to weak State Department protestations that a deal will halt the ballistic missile program.
  
  
• In December 2013, Mr. Obama personally assured a pro-Israel audience in Washington that, when it came to diplomacy, “no deal is better than a bad deal.” Now unnamed administration officials are selling the line that “the alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections, and an Iran ever-closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon.” In other words, virtually any deal is better than no deal.
  
  
  
• In March 2012, Mr. Obama insisted “my policy is not containment, my policy is to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.” He has said as much on some 20 other occasions. But the deal being contemplated now, with a sunset provision that will ultimately give Iran the right to enrich in whatever quantities and to whatever levels it wants, is neither prevention nor containment.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/bret-ste...ats-1425340271

Do you think this process is taking place in a vacuum? Shit changes during negotiations. How do you figure that a deal that keeps them in check for 10 years isn't prevention or containment? I'm betting you didn't read the article I posted. If you really want to blame someone, why not blame Russia? They're the only reason Iran has nuclear material at all. At the time he said no deal is better than a bad deal, that very well may have been true. Times change, situations change along with them. Israel obviously has a vested interest in Iran not obtaining a nuclear weapon. We can either negotiate with Iran and at least have them subject to being watched or we can spit in their face, piss them off and just wait until they finally develop a bomb. There are different variations to doing nothing and doing something. I would at least like to have them subject to being checked on versus being left to the their own devices.

[Whirlaway]

I know Obama has backtracked on his many statements; how has Iran changed?

Let us know when Iran's Mullahs denounce their calls for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.



changed his position;

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Do you think this process is taking place in a vacuum? Shit changes during negotiations. How do you figure that a deal that keeps them in check for 10 years isn't prevention or containment? I'm betting you didn't read the article I posted. If you really want to blame someone, why not blame Russia? They're the only reason Iran has nuclear material at all. At the time he said no deal is better than a bad deal, that very well may have been true. Times change, situations change along with them. Israel obviously has a vested interest in Iran not obtaining a nuclear weapon. We can either negotiate with Iran and at least have them subject to being watched or we can spit in their face, piss them off and just wait until they finally develop a bomb. There are different variations to doing nothing and doing something. I would at least like to have them subject to being checked on versus being left to the their own devices.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

I know Obama has backtracked on his many statements; how has Iran changed?

Let us know when Iran's Mullahs denounce their calls for the destruction of the Jewish state of Israel.



changed his position;

Did you ever consider that what is in Israel's best interest may not be in ours? How has Iran changed? Your buddy jb Jizzmop actually said Iran wasn't our enemy when he was defending reagans moves regarding Iran. Has Iran invaded us or threatened our homeland in some way?

[I B Hankering]

"When given a choice between ISIS or Iran, the enemy or your enemy is still your enemy," Netanyahu, 3 March 2015.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

"When given a choice between ISIS or Iran, the enemy or your enemy is still your enemy," Netanyahu, 3 March 2015.

That's a false choice. The choice is not between Iran or ISIS.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

That's a false choice. The choice is not between Iran or ISIS.

You've overdosed on your Kool Aid, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion.