- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 56,981
- Reaction score
- 27,029
- Location
- Chicago Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Private
You said inspections and other stipulations in the deal will not suffice, and we all know that sanctions are a temporary solution that cannot be sustained. So what option are you leaving other than a military strike?
This must be the best of sarcasm inc .. lol..I vote yes. It makes the world more interesting and I'm all for that. Frankly I think we need to begin "Environmentally Nuking" human ideological problem areas such as ISIS controlled Syria/Iraq and parts of Africa with Islamists.
It would be good for the environment.
You must not have read all of what the experts are saying. Sanctions would go back into full effect. Iran's economy was on the verge of collapse due to their own decisions to keep up their 30 Billion with Military and sponsoring terrorism.
Iran went from like 200 centrifuges to 1700 centrifuges under the sanctions. And the sanction regime requires international support, which would fall away if the US walks away from a deal.
You say you want a 'better deal', but you only advocate for an unattainable deal that will never be on the table under any circumstances whatsoever.
MMC, I believe you are supposed to give credit to authors when quoting their work.
matchlight, please remind me of the bombing missions into Cuba back in 1962 that caused the Soviet Union to withdraw.
Hmm, not sure I'd agree - with B.O. in place to stink up the operation proper,uch: he'd probably broadcast the date and time he planned on striking, with how strong a force, what kind of weapons, how long they'll be over target, altitude, air speed, GPS cords, along with resumes of the men involved; he'd arrange in advance for permission to enter Iranian air space, and probably accommodate the Ayatollahs by offering to go so far as to file a flight plan - in broken Farsi.
And to keep the Israelis from mucking up his brilliant :screwy plan, he'll cut a deal with Hamas and Hezbollah to keep the Israeli defense forces busy in turn for a promise of land in Israel proper once he's successful removing Netanyahu from power.
That, or he'll continue on the path he's most familiar with:
:surrender
:golf
I did......I said Kissinger and Schultz. Did you miss the post where I said their names? There is a couple of them in here.
You must not have read all of what the experts are saying. Whats Iran going to do.....declare war on the US? Puleeeze don't make me laugh this early in the morning.
Here's one that tells the truth of the deal.
Post #51 has no names and no link to your sourced quotes.
Nonsense, Obama has started drone wars all over the globe. He takes no prisoners and kills lots of civilians because drones are indiscriminate. He does this because the only place he can put prisoners is Gitmo, which he's trying to empty.
The facts, as told by Fareed Zakaria:
A nuclear deal with Iran is the best option - The Washington Post
And that deal would include what? Free and immediate inspections anytime anywhere, sanctions lifted over time, a stop to enriching, and closing their underground nuclear facility.
Here is what Netanyahu said in front of Congress.....not to mention. The Saud has already stated that they will have their Nuke. If Iran gets their.
He told the joint session that the emerging deal would allow Iran to retain too much of its existing nuclear infrastructure. And he warned that US and other Western powers are proposing to allow Iran to develop too many nuclear centrifuges, a key component to one day fielding an atomic weapon.
"If anyone thinks this deal kicks the can down the road, think again.
"The alternative to this deal," Netanyahu said, his voice booming as he pounded the podium with his left hand, "is a much better deal. "A better deal that doesn't leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure and short breakout times," Netanyahu said. "A better deal that doesn't give Iran an easy path to the bomb.....snip~
Netanyahu: Iran Deal Could Lead to War
I have done lots of research, and I have never relied on the internet for most of it--or on articles by left-wing propagandists who are always trying to defame this country.
As more details emerge it is appearing to be a bad deal.Until the sanctions regime crumbles, which it very well would if the US walks away from a decent deal. The sanctions regime crumbles, the US has very little leverage.
OK, an independent observer who has followed the debate in Canada's House of Commons about civilian casualties stemming from the war on terror especially Afghanistan, I have to make a value judgment of what you offer and what is offered in contrast.
What is offered in contrast is journalism, edited and fact checked in the journalistic traditions I practiced for 25 years plus. The Washington Post is a noted right leaning newspaper and is quoting two well known international civil rights organizations who have added their name to Doctors Without Borders in saying the US is less than honest in reporting the number of civilian casualties.
You offer a blog. A blog by a savagely right wing military geek with charts and graphs and nice colors, but doesn't appear to directly address the topic you are defending, that the US is really very efficient in killing.
What I do recall from the Commons debate, where our politicians lose their job if caught in a lie, is that in one drone attack, there were 19 attempts and they never did get the guy. Left unsaid was that each of those 19 attacks claimed lives of some kind and probably human.
We are dealing with a nation that has been waging war on terror for 14 years...and is losing. We began with one war, then two, now there are seven fronts and no sign of ever, ever leveling off let alone ending, a nation that had the criminal mastermind in its sights, but took ten years to assassinate him. A nation's whose intelligence community completely missed the fall of the Berlin Wall, the 911 attacks, misread Arab Spring as friendly and claimed the assassination of a sitting diplomat and three marines was a "spontaneous demonstration" Yes I know that was Obama, but he is your commander in chief and represents the entire US military.
So, with that, you offer as dispute that there aren't too many civilians being slaughtered, an internet blog that doesn't appear to deal with civilian casualties, but reads like a boyscout endorsement of US war policy.
It is a matter of who is believable and it has been my experience in lifetime of research that NGO's like Doctor's Without Borders are far and away, no ****ing light years more believable the United States Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex that it supports.
I would say you are guilty of what you deny...you only read that which supports your opinion and it doesn't seem to matter what is the source material.
This whole thing is about money & power.
Republicans want to make Obama look bad. Also they want to keep US arms dealers to selling to Saudi Arabia & wealth countries in the ME.
Saudi Arabia & Israel want to be the main powers in the ME. They want to keep the sanctions on Iran or have them fighting a War. The Israeli military police has said that Iran is not making Nukes.
The worst of the worst is the president who started this misadventure in Iraq March 20, 2003 and said "Mission Accomplished" May 1, 2003.Well sort of. Then there is the sectarian divide between Sunni and Shia.
Republicans don't need to make BO look bad. Bo has proven he is the worst of the worst. But naturally Republicans should point out when Bo is looking bad. Its not like the Demos are going to say much of anything when he screws up.
Only a few in the Mossad believe that and even Netanyahu's opposition agrees on Iran being a threat to Israel. Which that all just came out with the Israeli election.
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?