Archive

Disgusted with obama administration - Part II

  • BoatShoes
    majorspark;1710113 wrote:This will not stop until Iran is a nuclear armed nation. Barring unlikely military intervention by these so called "warmongers" Iran will become a nuclear armed nation. Its 1994 North Korea about to repeat itself. This will result in the promise of a US nuclear response to any nuclear attack on the gulf states allied with the US in order to convince them to not seek nuclear arms of their own. Just like South Korea and Japan who are fully capable of developing their own.

    http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/04/korea.brink/



    http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-19/news/mn-52118_1_north-korea-s-nuclear-weapons-program
    And yet North Korea didn't go full blown for the bomb until after they were called part of the Axis of Evil and the United States invaded one of the members of the Axis of Evil preemptively because of their alleged weapons of mass destruction. If you invade states that don't have nuclear weapons and you don't want these states to try and make them, you're gonna have a bad time.

    Iran, despite the rhetoric of the leadership which is in no way reflective of the will of the Iranian people, has also acted much more rationally than North Korea over the last several decades. For instance they are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have consistently complied with the international atomic energy agency.

    And of course there is also the fact that the United States invasion of Iraq removed the power balance to Iran in the region in the first place.
  • majorspark
    BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:And yet North Korea didn't go full blown for the bomb until after they were called part of the Axis of Evil and the United States invaded one of the members of the Axis of Evil preemptively because of their alleged weapons of mass destruction. If you invade states that don't have nuclear weapons and you don't want these states to try and make them, you're gonna have a bad time.
    LOL. North Korea has had a nuclear armed nation on their border for over 60 years. George Bush's axis of evil and the invasion of Iraq yeah that is what drove them to nukes. Prior to that they were not serious at all LOL. Seoul is 35 miles from the North Korean border. The Norks could rain hell on it. They have a strong conventional deterrent to invasion. Its held the line for 60 years and lets not to leave out the China factor. Iraq held none of these cards.
    BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:Iran, despite the rhetoric of the leadership which is in no way reflective of the will of the Iranian people, has also acted much more rationally than North Korea over the last several decades. For instance they are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have consistently complied with the international atomic energy agency.
    Well the will of the Iranian people does not matter much to their rulers and if someone speaks out they may find themselves imprisoned or dead. The Russians were a party to an agreement that if the Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal to them they would respect their borders. These nations use treaties when they are weak to buffer them until the regain strength. We lap it right up.
    BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:And of course there is also the fact that the United States invasion of Iraq removed the power balance to Iran in the region in the first place.
    This I agree with.
  • majorspark
    BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:And of course there is also the fact that the United States invasion of Iraq removed the power balance to Iran in the region in the first place.
    As I said I agree but for one who does not believe the world is governed by the aggressive use of force I must say I am a little puzzled by this statement. Perhaps you can clarify.
  • Cleveland Buck
  • majorspark
    One has to wonder then why the benign Iranian regime had military personnel killed in Syria a couple of months ago. I can't believe the peaceful government of Iran would blemish that clean slate with any foreign intervention.
  • superman
    Cleveland Buck;1710377 wrote:
    Lulz
  • QuakerOats
    ptown_trojans_1;1710286 wrote: I'm not as sold as others that Iran is driving toward a bomb, but I am definitely very skeptical that they want nuclear power just for power sakes. It is a very nuanced view, one that Bibi and Israel apparently cannot understand.

    article from former obama advisor: 'obama needs to answer Mr. Netanyahu'

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/04/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-deal-ross/24362743/
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1710444 wrote:article from former obama advisor: 'obama needs to answer Mr. Netanyahu'

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/03/04/netanyahu-iran-nuclear-deal-ross/24362743/
    Here's the thing, I actually agree with a lot of that article. There are a lot of questions that need answers in regards to the deal before it is final. But, to say no deal at all! makes no sense and only makes things worse.
    I would rather end up with some sort of deal where Iran's capability is checked with some sanctions still in place, than the previous situation where their stockpiling of 5% and 20% uranium was was growing and they were refusing to cooperate with the IAEA.
    And Denis is a hawk on Iran but actually supports the negotiations that are on going. It is just we have to make sure we get the best deal possible.
  • Con_Alma
    ptown_trojans_1;1710457 wrote:... It is just we have to make sure we get the best deal possible.
    The best deal possible isn't good enough. The right deal for the U.S.and Israel has to be negotiated or other means must be used to keep a nuclear warhead from being developed by Iran.
  • Con_Alma
    Cleveland Buck;1710377 wrote:
    ...to be continued. There will be more if needed to keep the U.S. both safe and a super power.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    Con_Alma;1710458 wrote:The best deal possible isn't good enough. The right deal for the U.S.and Israel has to be negotiated or other means must be used to keep a nuclear warhead from being developed by Iran.
    Sure, keep the sanctions up.
    But, the best possible deal is how these things work.
    Iran is going to continue to have the ability to enrich uranium. That fact is not going away. Iran will never agree to give it up. That ship has sailed.
    So, from there we need to figure out a way to offer up a credible verification measure.
    Honestly, Iran needs to sign the Additional Protocol, allow full on inspections and open up its military program to the IAEA like at Parchin.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1710347 wrote:And yet North Korea didn't go full blown for the bomb until after they were called part of the Axis of Evil and the United States invaded one of the members of the Axis of Evil preemptively because of their alleged weapons of mass destruction. If you invade states that don't have nuclear weapons and you don't want these states to try and make them, you're gonna have a bad time.

    Iran, despite the rhetoric of the leadership which is in no way reflective of the will of the Iranian people, has also acted much more rationally than North Korea over the last several decades. For instance they are parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and have consistently complied with the international atomic energy agency.

    And of course there is also the fact that the United States invasion of Iraq removed the power balance to Iran in the region in the first place.
    So we said N. Korea was bad and invaded Iraq, and you honestly believe that is why N. Korea then decided to go "full blown for the bomb"?

    That is some serious liberal logic there. That could be the largest jump in logic you have ever made on here BS, and that is saying something because you have had some real good ones.
  • jmog
    Cleveland Buck;1710377 wrote:
    lol, yup, those saints over in Iran have never hurt another nation...
  • jmog
    ptown_trojans_1;1710286 wrote:I'll set aside the political argument on whether it was right that Bibi made the speech, because it is pointless on here and is really not that big an issue big picture wise.
    But, as to the this is not a good deal part of the speech, ok so you cite an article, good for you.
    And centrifuges have grown over the past few years.
    However, so far over the last year these talks have done a few things. They have halted Iranian enriching uranium up to 20% and they have taken the existing fuel that they had at 20% and is now being donwgraded/ blended back to 5% or used for other fuel purposes.
    Also, the talks thus far have capped Iranian 5% uranium so for the first time in a while, the Iranian 5% stockpile is not growing.
    So, without these talks, like Bibi wants, Iran would still have 20% enrichment and have more 5% uranium as well.

    That right there is why some form of a deal is better than no deal. I would rather have still limited checks on Iran, with IAEA verification, than nothing, which is what Israel wants.
    Israel tends to think that Iran will somehow eliminate every portion of its nuclear program. Short of an invasion that is simply not happening. The Supreme Leader has said enrichment is a fundamental right for Iran. They are not giving it up.

    Now, I will say the deal does need to be fair, and Iran does need to open up on their shady shit. IAEA safeguards needs to be full, and maybe even the Additional Protocol before we loosen any sanctions. Also, we need to have Iran pledge and agree they will not enrich above 5%, and that the Heavy Water reactor at Arak does not come online. If they do not agree on those terms, then we can tinker with the sanctions a little, but will not loosen them at all.

    I'm not as sold as others that Iran is driving toward a bomb, but I am definitely very skeptical that they want nuclear power just for power sakes. It is a very nuanced view, one that Bibi and Israel apparently cannot understand.
    You quoted my post for what reason? You didn't address anything in my post at all.
  • Con_Alma
    ptown_trojans_1;1710466 wrote:Sure, keep the sanctions up.
    But, the best possible deal is how these things work.
    Iran is going to continue to have the ability to enrich uranium. That fact is not going away. Iran will never agree to give it up. That ship has sailed.
    So, from there we need to figure out a way to offer up a credible verification measure.
    Honestly, Iran needs to sign the Additional Protocol, allow full on inspections and open up its military program to the IAEA like at Parchin.
    I never mentioned sanctions.

    It's sounds as if you're willing to allow Iran to keep enriched uranium so long as inspections occur. I appologize if I am reading your post incorrectly. My response was based on the best deal may not be acceptable if it's not the right deal for the U.S. and Israel. A deal isn't the only means of keeping Iran from developing weapons. All options should be on the table.
  • Cleveland Buck
    Con_Alma;1710460 wrote:...to be continued. There will be more if needed to keep the U.S. both safe and a super power.
    You are partially right. There will be more. Even though it accomplishes the opposite of what you are hoping.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/feds-charge-menendez-corruption_877687.html



    another critic of the prez formally charged ..................say it ain't so
  • like_that
    gut;1710612 wrote:lmao....would an utterly stupid and rigged chart.

    Labor Participation is lower now than when Obama took office....one would think that was almost impossible since he came in near the bottom of a recession.
    I am responding here, since the other thread is for pics/memes.

    Don't forget to add stagnate wages with rising costs as well. I believe i read that if you factor the labor participation rate, the unemployment rate is actually 9.3%.

    Typical liberal math though.
  • gut
    like_that;1710620 wrote:I am responding here, since the other thread is for pics/memes.
    Yeah, if a meme isn't funny then it should at least be truthful. But stupid memes could not spread without stupid people.

    And LMAO, yet ANOTHER comparison vs. Bush.....I think the historically most notable things about Obama's presidency are going to be 1) He was black and 2) He wasn't Bush.
  • HitsRus
    Cleveland Buck;1710377 wrote:
    another fan of the BHO world apology tour...
    mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
  • like_that
    gut;1710628 wrote:Yeah, if a meme isn't funny then it should at least be truthful. But stupid memes could not spread without stupid people.

    And LMAO, yet ANOTHER comparison vs. Bush.....I think the historically most notable things about Obama's presidency are going to be 1) He was black and 2) He wasn't Bush.
    I wonder if liberals will stop talking about Bush 20 years from now.
  • gut
    like_that;1710634 wrote:I wonder if liberals will stop talking about Bush 20 years from now.
    It's going to seem racist when liberals are always comparing President Hillary with Bush.
  • superman
    jmog;1710477 wrote:lol, yup, those saints over in Iran have never hurt another nation...
    Gotta love all the lies in that graphic too.
  • HitsRus
    Fox news is the most trusted source for news....and it's not even close.

    MSNBC is dead last. I'm glad people can see thru the propaganda outlet's facade of "news".

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/09/fox-news-is-the-most-trusted-national-news-channel-and-its-not-that-close/
  • sleeper
    Fox news? Hard to believe they are the most trusted but no disagreement on MSNBC being the lowest. I can't even watch that shit for 10 seconds.