• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Admin: Congressional Crackdown on Terror Will Violate Iran Deal

literally no country designates us as a state sponsor of terrorism... so that begs the question... why are you lying?

Since no country designates us that, then that means the US has not and does not sponsor terrorism?
And as I stated earlier here are some examples:

"See:
-Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 and support for Luis Posada Carriles
-US training, supplying, and supervising of right wing death squads in El-Salvador
-US support for FRAPH in Haiti
-US funding, training, and support for the Contras in Nicaragua
-See the US School of Americas
-See US involvement in Chile in the 1970's
-See US support for Orlando Bosch
-See US support for Jundallah"
 
ahh the old help people over throw the dictator bit.
not what I call terrorism.

you evidently are using some other definition to terrorism.

:doh
Are you kidding me?
 
Since no country designates us that, then that means the US has not and does not sponsor terrorism?
And as I stated earlier here are some examples:

"See:
-Cubana de Aviación Flight 455 and support for Luis Posada Carriles
-US training, supplying, and supervising of right wing death squads in El-Salvador
-US support for FRAPH in Haiti
-US funding, training, and support for the Contras in Nicaragua
-See the US School of Americas
-See US involvement in Chile in the 1970's
-See US support for Orlando Bosch
-See US support for Jundallah"

yes, i'll take official position of every country on earth over that of a far left extremists online.... every single day of the week.

that, and , well, I don't consider every act of violence to be terroism like so many do today.
 
That was a super lame rebuttal.

such a response is a foregone conclusion when you're in here supporting Iran over the safety of US citizens.

I flat out don't give a **** what Iran wants... American citizens are our government number 1 priority, not the feelings of the Iranian regime.
if that agreement dictates that we can't pursue policies that address the safety of our citizens ... then it was a very bad deal indeed.. one that should be violated or stricken, post haste.
 
yes, i'll take official position of every country on earth over that of a far left extremists online.... every single day of the week.

that, and , well, I don't consider every act of violence to be terroism like so many do today.

So what are those actions called? Bombing a passenger jet in the name of a political act? What do you call the use of death squads in the name of anti-communism? What do you call the use of suicide bombers in the name of Salafist Jihadism?
 
So what are those actions called? Bombing a passenger jet in the name of a political act? What do you call the use of death squads in the name of anti-communism? What do you call the use of suicide bombers in the name of Salafist Jihadism?
Just speaking for myself, I call it a massive deflection from the thread topic.
 
Just speaking for myself, I call it a massive deflection from the thread topic.

No its not. The reason for Iran being put on this list is because they are labeled by the USA as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism"....
 
So what are those actions called? Bombing a passenger jet in the name of a political act? What do you call the use of death squads in the name of anti-communism? What do you call the use of suicide bombers in the name of Salafist Jihadism?

I'd have to look at the particulars of each case.... but without fail, I'll still side with the USA, even if I don't agree with the violence.

try as you might, you'll never get me to hate the USA....so ya might as well know that before you continue.
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.

Obama screwed the pooch and screwed up so we are supposed to screw up more to protect the original screw up. It doesn't surprise me a bit.
 
No its not. The reason for Iran being put on this list is because they are labeled by the USA as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism"....

sucks to be them.... maybe they should have thought about that before making themselves an enemy.


in any event, Iran doesn't dictate US immigration policy.... and if the deal says they can, then the deal needs to be ignored or scrapped.
 
I'd have to look at the particulars of each case.... but without fail, I'll still side with the USA, even if I don't agree with the violence.

try as you might, you'll never get me to hate the USA....so ya might as well know that before you continue.

So is it state sponsored terrorism?
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.

And we wonder why the Sunni's don't trust this adminstration.
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.

I know nothing about this source; however, I doubt it is the full story or that anyone is more worried about breaking the deal than the safety of the US citizens. Likely something small that some are trying to exaggerate into something it really isn't.
 
So...according to the Obama administration, they make a bad deal with Iran...our Congress considers ways to protect US citizens (something that is really the President's job, anyway)...and the Obama administration is concerned that Congress's actions might cause Iran to walk out on that bad deal.

Do I have that about right?


If so, then my reaction has to be: Too Freaking Bad, Obama!! You should have gotten the deal right to begin with.

OMFG, someone buy Obama a fresh box of tampons.
 
No its not. The reason for Iran being put on this list is because they are labeled by the USA as a "State Sponsor of Terrorism"....

Which they are. Are you disputing that, or just playing the equivalency game?
 
Which they are. Are you disputing that, or just playing the equivalency game?

Do the US actions justify itself being put on the same list? Does it not show that the "State Sponsor of Terrorism" list is only used for political reasons which clearly show hypocrisy of our government?
 
Do the US actions justify itself being put on the same list? Does it not show that the "State Sponsor of Terrorism" list is only used for political reasons which clearly show hypocrisy of our government?

I guess you'd have to make your case that the US currently engages in terrorism. Although it could get awkward if we ban anyone from entering the US who had recently been to the US, but it would be kind of funny.

Having said that, it looks to me like you're playing the equivalency game, so have fun with that.
 
I know nothing about this source; however, I doubt it is the full story or that anyone is more worried about breaking the deal than the safety of the US citizens. Likely something small that some are trying to exaggerate into something it really isn't.

Did you read the article? Did you read the part of the article that I quoted in my OP?

The article gave quotes from various people in Iran and in the Obama administration. Of particular note is this:

Senior Obama administration officials are expressing concern that congressional attempts to tighten laws preventing terrorists from entering the United States could violate the Iran nuclear agreement and prompt Tehran to walk away from the agreement.

and this:

Stephen Mull, the State Department official in charge of implementing the Iran deal, warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late last week that these congressional efforts “could have a very negative impact on the deal.”

Now...Iran is making noise about the action in Congress and the Obama administration is worried that Iran is going to walk out on the crappy deal they made. Obama just wants to set up someone to blame when they do.

As I said...too freaking bad, Obama. You should have made a better deal.
 
Did you read the article? Did you read the part of the article that I quoted in my OP?

The article gave quotes from various people in Iran and in the Obama administration. Of particular note is this:



and this:



Now...Iran is making noise about the action in Congress and the Obama administration is worried that Iran is going to walk out on the crappy deal they made. Obama just wants to set up someone to blame when they do.

As I said...too freaking bad, Obama. You should have made a better deal.

You assume those are true quotes and not out of context. Like I said, I don't know your source and will seek something more known.
 
You assume those are true quotes and not out of context. Like I said, I don't know your source and will seek something more known.

Okay...you do the seeking if you want to.

I have no reason to believe that The Washington Free Beacon would lie about what Mr. Mull said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
 
Okay...you do the seeking if you want to.

I have no reason to believe that The Washington Free Beacon would lie about what Mr. Mull said to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

There's no reason to believe it wouldn't either. I've just seen a lot of misinformation on these pages and often we find later that the quote was out of context and the terrible thing wasn't really true. It's happened so often that I withhold judgment until it's more solid.
 
There's no reason to believe it wouldn't either. I've just seen a lot of misinformation on these pages and often we find later that the quote was out of context and the terrible thing wasn't really true. It's happened so often that I withhold judgment until it's more solid.

Okay.

There are other sources. Check them out.
 
Back
Top Bottom