Reply With Quote
Darrin, or his family, friends, ready to die in war with Iran.
Darrin, or his family, friends, ready to die in war with Iran.
http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...-obama/398450/Whatever its deficiencies, the Iran deal places limits on Iran’s nuclear program and enhances oversight of it. Walk away from the agreement in hopes of getting tougher restrictions and you’re guaranteeing, at least for the time being, that there are barely any restrictions on the program at all.
What’s more, even if Congress passes new sanctions, it’s quite likely that the overall economic pressure on Iran will go down, not up. Most major European and Asian countries have closer economic ties to Iran than does the United States, and thus more domestic pressure to resume them. These countries have abided by international sanctions against Iran, to varying degrees, because the Obama administration convinced their leaders that sanctions were a necessary prelude to a diplomatic deal. If U.S. officials reject a deal, Iran’s historic trading partners will not economically injure themselves indefinitely. Sanctions, declared Britain’s ambassador to the United States in May, have already reached “the high-water mark,” noting that “you would probably see more sanctions erosion” if nuclear talks fail. Germany’s ambassador added that, “If diplomacy fails, then the sanctions regime might unravel.”
for all his evil empire bs, Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. was he an appeaser too?
What land area did the US and other countries agree to give Iran, Darrin?
That's completely different.
He sold Iran 2500 missiles.
For peace!
MARG BAR ISRAEL
Road stake for the liberation of Central America from local control. Totes different. We couldn't very well appropriate the funds in the usual fashion.
Former Rep. Ron Paul said in two recent interviews that he supports the Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran, calling it “to the benefit of world peace.”
Paul’s statements stand in contrast to his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has said he will vote against the deal.
Ron Paul told “The Michael Berry Show” on Friday that a lot of opposition to the deal comes from an unfair view of Iranians, according to Buzzfeed.
“We have learned and been conditioned to distrust and hate the Persians, and that they’re gonna kill us,” Paul said. “But there’s no history to show that Iran are aggressive people.”
“When’s the last time they invaded a country? Over 200 years ago!” he added, comparing Iran’s support for terror groups to “what our CIA does.”
“We’re in 160 countries, and Iran is, you know, involved with Hezbollah and the others, trying to protect their interests,” Paul said.
He compared Obama’s deal to one reached by Ronald Reagan with Soviet Russia in the 1980s.
“Reagan did another deal with the Soviets, at the height [of the Cold War], and they had 30,000 missiles!” Paul said.
“They didn’t say boo about Reagan doing it!” he added. “And yet that was even a bigger gamble — but it was the right gamble to make.”
Ron Paul told Newsmax on Tuesday that the agreement was a step toward a better world, even if it doesn’t achieve everything it could.
"There's something to be said about moving in the direction of at least talking to people instead of saying, 'All right, you're scoundrels, we'll keep our $100 billion we've taken from you and all options are on the table, like if you don't do what we tell you, we're allowed to use our nuclear weapons against you,' " Paul said.
"The tone has been changed. It's to our benefit; it's to the benefit of world peace,” he added
Rand Paul, a 2016 presidential candidate, tweeted Tuesday that “the proposed agreement with Iran is unacceptable and I will vote against the agreement.”
If You Can’t Beat Trump, Join Him: Huckabee Delivers Most Outrageous Line Of 2016
Huckabee called President Obama’s foreign policy “the most feckless in American history,” and called Obama naive to trust the Iranians.
“By doing so, he will take the Israelis and march them to the door of the oven,”
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/...an-israel-wow/
You ing Repugs are ing nuts.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-26-2015 at 05:50 PM.
The Huckster is literally mad.
This is so played out.
Unbelievable... what a clown show the republican primary is.
Trump campaign manager: Huckabee’s right — Obama is sending Israelis to the ovens
Cohen — who serves as “special counsel to Donald Trump” — was a guest on CNN’sNew Day with Chris Cuomo.
“Does Donald Trump think it was wrong and offensive?” Cuomo asked, about the governor’s choice of metaphor.
“I don’t think so,” Cohen replied. “I think what he’s really trying to say here is that we’re really in a bad place.”
“He’s okay with these words?” said Cuomo. “‘March Israelis to the door of the oven?'”
“Because we’ve been there,” Cohen said. “My father was a Holocaust survivor and I can tell you, there’s that old statement, ‘Never again.’ What Trump is trying to say is that a nuclear Iran is the destruction of this world.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/trum...e+Raw+Story%29
So what is the Repug alternative plan for Iran? bombing? invasion? Trump's plan for Iran?
It's literally a campaign strategy to say something ridiculous and attention grabbing. And like clockwork, it boosts the candidate in the polls.
President Obama could say on the public record that the Republican party is the best political party in the history of the world and that nobody should ever again vote for a Democrat, and Republicans would vehemently deny his statement.
Have the GOP candidates gotten around to reading the agreement yet?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...the-iran-deal/You can argue that this deal should have been different, but when it comes time to vote on whether it should go forward, members of Congress will be choosing between two options, neither of them hypothetical. A yes vote means all the parties — not only Iran and the United States, but also the United Nations, China, Russia, and the European Union — implement this deal. A no vote, in contrast, doesn’t mean that some fantasy deal will fall from the sky. It means that the U.S. walks away from this deal, and it collapses.
That also could mean that the existing sanctions regime collapses. We can keep our sanctions on Iran, but the reason sanctions have been so devastating to the country’s economy is that they haven’t just come from the U.S., but also from the United Nations, the European Union, and elsewhere. If those other sanctions were to disappear, Iran would get most of what it wanted without having to fulfill any obligations at all. And if they want to pursue a nuclear weapon, they could then go right ahead.
and the alternative to the agreement is?
The Obama Admin. would have us believe the alternative is war.
that's exactly what the Repugs, Christian End Timers, and Bibi want. bomb Iran is the ONLY solution.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 07-27-2015 at 02:54 PM.
So you are now the official spokesmen for the Republicans... how convenient for you.
I listen to, quote the Repugs. MrTXstar, don't with me, you're clearly out of your depth already.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
