GOP Senators send a letter to Iran

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by gary5912

Jack you may as well be talking to a stone wall

That's not true. I simply don't think that war is the answer to our problems. Short of that, what would you have us do? We have to learn to work with people we don't like. I do it every day.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

That's not true. I simply don't think that war is the answer to our problems. Short of that, what would you have us do? We have to learn to work with people we don't like. I do it every day.

That is exactly what all of Europe said in 1937.

But that's old history. This is more modern times, it could never repeat now. After all, The Iranians just want enriched uranium for peaceful purposes.

Neville Chamberline waving that stupid little piece of paper saying, "I believe it is peace in our time" is no different than President Obama, Susan Rice, and John Kerry presenting a stupid negotiation with a bunch of Religious Fanatics and proclaiming "We have avoided Iran getting a Nuclear Bomb".

The religious thugs who rule Iran are no different than The Natzi Party. The even have their own "Mein Kamph". It's called The Koran.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

That is exactly what all of Europe said in 1937.

But that's old history. It could never repeat now. After all, The Nazis only wanted a little.

The religious thugs who rule Iran are no different than The Natzi Party. The even have their own "Mein Kamph". It's called The Koran.

I didn't say it couldn't repeat. Instead of forecasting impending doom, put forth a suggestion on what exactly we should do. I would say watch them like a hawk and the first time they screw up, they lose their nuclear program. Their first screw up won't be dropping a bomb, either. They'll screw up before then if a bomb is what they're after.

[Guest040616]

Criticism of the rogue 47 Republican Senator's continues to mount:

"In Ohio, the Cleveland Plain Dealer and Cincinnati Enquirer endorsed Sen. Rob Portman's 2010 campaign, but they berated him this week for signing the Iran letter.

"The magnitude of this disgraceful decision," a Plain Dealer editorial said, "shows the degree to which partisanship has gobbled up rationality on foreign policy."

The Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial said the letter "diminishes the dignity of the Senate by disparaging the president and presenting an amateur lesson on U.S. governance." It praised Portman in general, but said he erred because "now, facing re-election, he's nervous."

Portman, appearing in Columbus Friday, said the letter will strengthen Obama's hand in negotiations with Iran. But former Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat hoping to unseat Portman next year, called the letter "disgraceful" in a fundraising letter.

In New Hampshire, The Telegraph of Nashua — which endorsed Sen. Kelly Ayotte in 2010 — chastised her for signing the letter.

"One wonders how loud and angry the Republican response would have been if a petty clan of Democratic senators had written an open letter to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev" during nuclear arms talks with Washington, the Telegraph editorial said.

In Illinois, the editorial page of the Peoria Journal Star, which endorsed Sen. Mark Kirk in 2010, said, "Our expectations were higher of Kirk."

The Salt Lake Tribune similarly criticized Utah's two senators — Republicans Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee — for signing the letter. The paper has endorsed Hatch's elections.

Some of the seven Republican senators who didn't sign the letter have gently questioned their colleagues' actions.

"I just didn't feel that it was appropriate or productive at this point," said Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona."

http://news.yahoo.com/criticism-buil...194004186.html

[IIFFOFRDB]

The Media Matters undercunt is at it again. IGNORE this anarchist. Gary is right and Soros is a overcunt.

[Guest040616]

And this from U.S. Army Major General Paul D. Eaton:

"So, I turned to retired Major Gen. Paul D. Eaton for perspective. He wouldn’t say Cotton and Co. were “traitors,” either. He had a better word.

“I would use the word mutinous,” said Eaton, whose long career includes training Iraqi forces from 2003 to 2004. He is now a senior adviser to VoteVets.org. “I do not believe these senators were trying to sell out America. I do believe they defied the chain of command in what could be construed as an illegal act.” Eaton certainly had stern words for Cotton.

“What Senator Cotton did is a gross breach of discipline, and especially as a veteran of the Army, he should know better,” Eaton told me. “I have no issue with Senator Cotton, or others, voicing their opinion in opposition to any deal to halt Iran’s nuclear progress. Speaking out on these issues is clearly part of his job. But to directly engage a foreign entity, in this way, undermining the strategy and work of our diplomats and our Commander in Chief, strains the very discipline and structure that our foreign relations depend on, to succeed.” The consequences of Cotton’s missive were plainly apparent to Eaton. “The breach of discipline is extremely dangerous, because undermining our diplomatic efforts, at this moment, brings us another step closer to a very costly and perilous war with Iran,” he said.

“I think Senator Cotton recognizes this, and he simply does not care,” Eaton went on to say. “That’s what disappoints me the most.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-iran-letter/

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I didn't say it couldn't repeat. Instead of forecasting impending doom, put forth a suggestion on what exactly we should do. I would say watch them like a hawk and the first time they screw up, they lose their nuclear program. Their first screw up won't be dropping a bomb, either. They'll screw up before then if a bomb is what they're after.

They lose their Nuclear Program? Just exactly how do we go about that?
This is just my opinion, but I don't think we, as a Country, have the will to do what it will take.

When the World ignored The Nazis from 1932 to 1937, what did it finally take to end their evil motives. I think it was called WW-2.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Not really. They told the Iranians that just because our President and his advisors are so naive and gullible as to trust a bunch of Religious Fanatics who have commandeered an entire Country, does not mean that all of the United States will follow in such assinine thinking.

You are aware there are seven nations talking on this agreement. It isn't just Obie and Kerry.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I'm just tired of us trying to export our brand of 'freedom' all over the world. Not everyone wants to be like us. And that's OK.

Actually, when it comes to having the bomb Iran DOES want to "be like us". But that's ok too, right undercunt?

Only an idiot would conflate our efforts to stop their nuclear program with "us trying to export our brand of 'freedom' all over the world." Did you sleep through the June 2009 Iranian elections, undercunt? Millions of Iranians flooded the streets protesting against the mullahs for brazenly and fraudulently declaring Ahmadinejad the winner. Nothing but peeps from the Amateur in the White House. So much for exporting our freedom under Odumbo.

[Jackie S]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

You are aware there are seven nations talking on this agreement. It isn't just Obie and Kerry.

They are as gullible and naive as our Administration is.
Besides, the Europeans have a documented history of caving in.

And whether we like it or not, there is always the Russians. Sure, they are in on the deal now. But mark my word, they will be the first ones undermining the entire Proccess if they see a way to poke us in the eye.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You would be right behind us in line to be put against the wall. It's not that I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm just tired of us playing the role of the world's principal. You should actually do a little research. The majority of the Iranian population don't hate Americans. You're confusing the people with their government. It's an all or nothing proposition with you though.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/2972677

Amazingly, OverCompensation has accidentally swerved into the truth. The Iranian people don't hate America for the most part. One of my closest friends recently moved back to his home in Iran. We still keep in touch. He teaches English to Iranians who want to come to America, not as terrorists, but because they love this country. If we left Iran alone, they would grow into a strong ally. But we, for some reason, think we have to keep fucking around in their internal affairs. The only reason they keep rattling sabers is because we won't leave them alone! Remember, they were a democracy before we started fucking with them. But their elected government was going to nationalize the oil fields. We couldn't let Standard Oil, Shell Oil and the rest actually have to pay a fair price for the oil we were stealing from Iran, so we instituted a brutal dictator. I can't understand why they would feel a need to protect themselves from us! [sarcasm]

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Our record might be poor but they've been at it for years and still don't have a bomb. With the help of the UK and Canada, we went from no bomb to dropping bombs in 6 years. And that was over 60 years ago. And that was without a blueprint. I'm not saying they wouldn't use one for dastardly purposes, but they're obviously either having trouble making it happen or it's not really what they're after, seeing as how they've had a nuclear program since the late 50's/early 60's. Several IAEA reports indicate they haven't progressed much if at all since 2003. If they agree to full UN inspections and work with foreign representatives in their nuclear industry, which they have indicated they would do, I don't really see what other path we have. They feel they have the right to enrich uranium on their soil for energy purposes. And here's the thing that most lay people don't understand; going from nuclear energy to a nuclear bomb is a very complicated process. Nuclear energy is at best 2-4 percent fissile material. To build a weapon, you need almost pure fissile material, usually more than 90 percent. That's the gulf between reactor grade and weapons grade. This is a good article on just how hard it is to build a device based either on uranium or plutonium.

http://www.livescience.com/5752-hard...r-weapons.html

Your stupidity is staggering and beyond belief! Your link is 5-1/2 years old! Where the fuck do you get your information? Is it always so stupendously out of date?

The goal of the current negotiations with Iran is to LENGTHEN the time it would take them to make a dash for the bomb to at least a year. That means – - the Iranians are currently LESS than a year away from having it. Yet you come on here prattling that “they're obviously either having trouble making it happen or it's not really what they're after”? I will tell you what is obvious, undercunt - either you are fucking delusional or you're being paid by the Iranians to spew misinformation.

Here is another undercunt gem:

“Several IAEA reports indicate they haven't progressed much if at all since 2003.”

Really? Which reports say that, undercunt? Here is a link to the IAEA website showing all of their reports on Iran for the past dozen years. That's right, I'm calling your bluff, dickhead! Tell us exactly which reports say they aren't making progress:

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focu...n-iaea-reports

And while you're at it, tell us exactly how many installed centrifuges does Iran have today versus 2003? And how many tons of enriched uranium does it have today versus 2003? Go ahead, and give us a breakdown on the enrichment percentages by ton, since you are an expert on “fissile material”.

And when you have done all that, I have one more question for you undercunt – how many times will you make me hand your doltish and arrogant ass to you before you finally learn to stop spouting off on subjects you obviously know nothing about? Do you enjoy having your stupidity exposed on eccie over and over again?

.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

They are as gullible and naive as our Administration is.
Besides, the Europeans have a documented history of caving in.

And whether we like it or not, there is always the Russians. Sure, they are in on the deal now. But mark my word, they will be the first ones undermining the entire Proccess if they see a way to poke us in the eye.

Guess then that puts you on the nuke 'em list.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Take a deep breath, undercunt. Your penis enlargement meds ain't working.

Originally Posted by shanm

Whenever you nitpick on sentences its clear you have lost the argument and are wallowing in shame.

Just because his pee-pee is so small doesn't mean it's "nitpicking" to mention it. I'm just trying to help the poor guy. No shame in his angry inch.

[shanm]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Amazingly, OverCompensation has accidentally swerved into the truth. The Iranian people don't hate America for the most part. One of my closest friends recently moved back to his home in Iran. We still keep in touch. He teaches English to Iranians who want to come to America, not as terrorists, but because they love this country. If we left Iran alone, they would grow into a strong ally. But we, for some reason, think we have to keep fucking around in their internal affairs. The only reason they keep rattling sabers is because we won't leave them alone! Remember, they were a democracy before we started fucking with them. But their elected government was going to nationalize the oil fields. We couldn't let Standard Oil, Shell Oil and the rest actually have to pay a fair price for the oil we were stealing from Iran, so we instituted a brutal dictator. I can't understand why they would feel a need to protect themselves from us! [sarcasm]

CuteOldIdiot, I think it's you who actually "swerved into the truth". We've been saying this all along. Now just pass this piece of wisdom along to your butt-boys and we can live happily ever after.