- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 64,311
- Reaction score
- 62,763
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Biden whitehouse close to getting a nuclear deal done with Iran. Is this good news or bad news?
Iran nuclear deal near, diplomats say
All Vienna talks participants said a deal is close, but some issues remain unresolved.www.axios.com
Right, "We aren't going to do anything about the Saudis and their Wahhabism because they are OURMaybe Canadia can sail their navy over there and pound them to sand
Assume that there IS a "deal" worked out that stops the Iranians from developing actual nuclear weapons.Another disaster for Joe.
what would constitute a disaster, cutting a deal or not coming to an agreement?Another disaster for Joe.
So it's okay to fund a extremist regime, as long as it's oil? American oil and LNG being piped and sold on the global market would be better.On the one hand, return of Iranian oil supply to the world oil markets would help to relieve rising oil prices.
But will it make the world less safe, by allowing Iran to replenish itself, to later facilitate its breakout across the nuclear threshold?
You like 'what if' games, because you could get an 'imaginary' win?Assume that there IS a "deal" worked out that stops the Iranians from developing actual nuclear weapons.
In that case, please let me know how you will manage to characterize that as a "disaster".
These people hate America, declared that they won't abide by any deal, and are a terrorist nation.what would constitute a disaster, cutting a deal or not coming to an agreement?
the iranians did abide by the dealThese people hate America, declared that they won't abide by any deal, and are a terrorist nation.
What the hawks need to prove is that they can offer a specific, measurable set of acceptance criteria such that they would drop sanctions if that criteria were met. Thus far all they’ve had is cheap talk about the Obama deal being bad, while studiously avoiding drawing up a deal they prefer. Trump represented the worst of this… he tore up the previous deal, claiming he had a better one, then promptly proceeded to never actually offer one.
Oh hell, the US has NEVER had any real problem in funding extremist regimes ever since 1945. Those regimes do NOTSo it's okay to fund a extremist regime, as long as it's oil? American oil and LNG being piped and sold on the global market would be better.
And you don't like answering any questions unless you control all of the postulates as well as the wording of the question AND the answer is what you want it to be.You like 'what if' games, because you could get an 'imaginary' win?
If a country came into the United States of America, tossed out the elected government, installed an absolute monarchy, and then appropriated American natural resources for companies from their own country - how "friendly" would you feel towards that country after you had tossed the absolute monarchy out on its ear IF the country that had installed the absolute monarchy did nothing but say derogatory things about the US, make threats against the US, and tried as hard as possible to destroy the entire economy of the US?These people hate America,
Piffle (and you know it).declared that they won't abide by any deal,
Iranian terrorists have overthrown the US government and established a puppet police state on how many occasions?and are a terrorist nation.
The criteria is no nukes.
wtf does this have to do with not giving nukes to an extremist ruled country that might actually try to use them and inadvertently start WW3??Oh hell, the US has NEVER had any real problem in funding extremist regimes ever since 1945. Those regimes do NOT
but they DO
- have to have oil;
- have to have valuable natural resources;
- have to have a market for US consumer goods;
- have an honest government;
- have honest elections; or
- have a "good civil rights record";
- have to have a market for US military equipment;
- have a government that is compliant with the wishes of the US government; and
- have a government that allows American companies to make large profits without paying more than nominal taxes.
LOL, they just flail like this. So entertaining. Stubbed my toe, BIDEN BAD!!Another disaster for Joe.
And who is giving what nukes to what extremist ruled country?wtf does this have to do with not giving nukes to an extremist ruled country that might actually try to use them and inadvertently start WW3??
I wouldn't say "sucks" but "doesn't act anywhere near in the manner that innocent young American school children are taught the US acts and has always acted" DOES cover the ground.yeah the US sucks and we're the worst out there to be the worlds superpower, EXCEPT for every other large powerful country like China or Russia.
Tell me, what would you advocate the US government do in the case of the "Shas", "Agudat Yisrael", "Degel HaTorah", "Atid Ehad", "Noam", "Otzma Yehudit", and the like taking power in Israel?good luck with those aholes.
allowing said country to develop nukes then , use them and start ww3, then, if that is clearer for you.And who is giving what nukes to what extremist ruled country?
no **** who doesn't know this? we don't even trust our own government fully. but when the rubber hits the road, we tend to come through. I mean Europe could all be speaking German or Russian now if we hadn't helped out and opposed those regimes.I wouldn't say "sucks" but "doesn't act anywhere near in the manner that innocent young American school children are taught the US acts and has always acted" DOES cover the ground.
Israel is already a nuclear power I believe. what is the issue you speak of and what do you think we should do? what should Canada do?Tell me, what would you advocate the US government do in the case of the "Shas", "Agudat Yisrael", "Degel HaTorah", "Atid Ehad", "Noam", "Otzma Yehudit", and the like taking power in Israel?
And, since there WAS a "deal" in place that would have precluded Iran from developing nuclear weapons, can you tell me how tearing up the "deal" was NOT "allowing said country to develop nukes" and WHICH American President tore up the "deal"?allowing said country to develop nukes then , use them and start ww3, then, if that is clearer for you.
It would appear that a whole lot of Americans actually think that American history and policy and government were always in conformance with what they were taught as innocent young school children the US stood for and the way that the US acted.no **** who doesn't know this?
One should never trust the government fully.we don't even trust our own government fully.
Indeed, once in 1917 for what was effectively a show of force against a collapsing enemy (and one that wasn't followed up with the actions which might well have prevented WWII), and once in 1941 after being directly attacked (and after having sucked all available assets out of its "friends" who were actively fighting Hitler and his Nazis).but when the rubber hits the road, we tend to come through.
Undoubtedly.I mean Europe could all be speaking German or Russian now if we hadn't helped out and opposed those regimes.
See abovethink they'd be better off?
So, if the "Right Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists" take control of Israel you think that they should be "allowed" to have nuclear weapons? Is that because they are OUR "Right Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists" as opposed to THEIR "Left Wing" (and that is on the world scale - not just the US scale) "Reactionary", "Fundamentalist", "Uber-nationalists"?Israel is already a nuclear power I believe. what is the issue you speak of and what do you think we should do? what should Canada do?
And, since there WAS a "deal" in place that would have precluded Iran from developing nuclear weapons, can you tell me how tearing up the "deal" was NOT "allowing said country to develop nukes" and WHICH American President tore up the "deal"?
Right, and when the Iranians can prove that, not only do they not have any nuclear weapons but, they will never, in the future, develop nuclear weapons, then the US government should start to establish the parameters that will guide the selection of the appointments committee which will consider potential candidates for the yet to be established decision making body which will eventually make a non-binding recommendation on whether or not the US should start to consider the theoretical possibility of studying whether or not it might potentially be advisable to suggest considering a degree of relaxation of the restrictions which the US government has imposed on Iran and which it penalizes the rest of the world if they do not comply with.
One small step at a time.The deal Obama made would not have precluded Iran from developing nukes.
It would delay when they could develop nukes.
Which, of course, is not something that I did say.So are you indifferent to Iran having nukes,
Would you please tell me when the government of the United States of America was put in charge of what every country in the world may, or may not, do?or oppossed to the USA saying Iran CAN'T have nukes?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?