Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by oragator1, Nov 23, 2013.
Isn't it just for 6 months? Surprised it wasn't until after the next election!
Now he can do some struttin', no doubt about that.
So if we don't give them some money, they will secretly create nuclear weapons, and use them.
So if we give them some money, they will super-secretly create nuclear weapons, and use them.
Oh, and thanks for the money.
But hey, they wouldn't lie to the infidels, would they ? :huh: :laugh:
N Korea part deaux. They get re capitalized and refresh all their spare parts before violating the terms like they did with the first 2 agreements they signed.
which money did we give our of own wallet?
The mullahs only understand determined power, which was represented by the sanctions cripling their economy. We had them at the point of capitulating to Western demands for a dismantling of their weapons program. A further turning of the screws may just have been the breaking point.
The mullahs also understand weakness. They have been watching as Obama floundered in Syria and sank in the swamp of Obamacare. They knew that with his approval ratings tanking Obama was vulnerable to a deal...any deal that would change the conversation.
The mullahs have succeded in taking advantage of Obama's weakness and vulnerability to void all the work of the sanctions to date. Now, when this agreement is violated (as it surely will be) the West must start over in the effort to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon.
So it seems that the major obstacle to the dismantling of Iran's nuclear weapons program is a weak U.S. president and the embarassing, public failure of Obamacare.
Straight from the playbook of Nevile Chamberlain.
River, that's a good one.
LD, how is this agreement taken from the Neville Chamberlain playbook? Please don't say he is appeasing cause that would be a pathetic answer.
...did you miss the Ayatollah's speech this week? Where he blasts the US, Israel, France, and the West? Reiterates that Iran will continue to do what it wants when it comes to nuclear enrichment?
Not exactly the dialogue of a guy who embraces a deal and wants peace.
Chamberlain looks like a fool in retrospect because it's not like Hitler ever changed his tune. Germany wanted land and territory and Hitler said that before and after their "agreement for peace."
Given how often the Iranians have broken treaties in the first place, why should anyone trust them?
Because 0 needed a distraction
The ACA rollout has been a mess, no doubt about it. But that hardly means the rest of the world is supposed to stand still
Talking to work out our differences would be a good thing I would think. The only way we are going to solve the problems in the Middle East is through diplomacy. This deal hopefully will be a stepping stone to that end. This agreement is about building trust.
So bury your head in the sand. Got it. That's your solution.
Kerry has arrived in London from Munich, I mean Geneva, and has announced "peace in our time."
The administration is pulling anything they can out of their hat to change the narrative. It's just not going to work.
I am pretty sure they are hoping to benefit from it, but it's naive and kind of silly to think that is the reason they are pursuing this. To believe otherwise, one would have to ignore the fact that the Iranian nuclear ambitions have been pretty central to geopolitics.
What I do know is this administration is desperate to take the focus of his disaster legislation.
Consider the source-John Kerry and the Obama Administration.
What a bunch of LOSERS.
Here's an excellent synopsis concerning some of the maneuvers that have gone on and are going on with this deal.
I don't think Chamberlain is a fair comparison either. I don't recall Chamberlain offering $7 billion to Hitler on behalf of the rest of Western Europe in exchange for absolutely nothing of substance. Don't insult Chamberlain like that.