• 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!

Who do you trust more to deal with Iran?

Who do you trust more to deal with Iran?

  • Total voters
    54
Navy Pride said:
well what do yyou think?
Click to expand...



Looks like 19 are trusting BO Peep so far huh, NP. :2wave: Despite the discovery of the Sunset Clause.



'Sunset Clause' Is Iran Deal's Fatal Flaw.....


The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the "right to enrich." It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern "about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the "sunset clause." President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want. Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would re-enter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview last December, as "a very successful regional power." A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.

Meanwhile, Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It's not even part of these negotiations. Why is Iran building them? You don't build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example. Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.....snip~

Iran Deal: Sunset Clause Is Fatal Flaw
 
wow.gif
did that change from 19 to 81 in favor of Trusting BO. All in less than 40 mins. I wonder how much they trust this Guy.

32-khamenei-ap-v2.jpg



Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has outlined a nine-step plan to “eliminate” Israel.

The Supreme Leader of Iran’s official Twitter account has posted a set of answers to what are described as the “key questions”, saying that Israel is guilty of a host of “crimes”.

In July Khamenei described Israel as a “rabid dog” for its bombardment of Gaza....snip~

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei outlines plan to 'eliminate' Israel - Middle East - World - The Independent

B1_LKrrIcAAMAZB.png
 
disneydude said:
Well considering that Reagan supplied most of the arms to Iraq to build up their army during the Iran/Iraq war....it would have at least made more logical sense.
Click to expand...


Right out of the White House playbook...

The Cheney reference was great I thought....nice touch when trying to destroy the credibility of an ally....

I sure don't want you guys for an ally after that. Hanging with Obama means you get thrown under a bus by a band of howling banshees, too cowardly to even attend the ****ing speech, afraid of words.

The reason I have so much contempt for the entire Obama administration is that they are so insecure they have to try to destroy the reputations of anyone who disagrees with them.,...even after he spent the first 10 minutes praising the US-Israeli relationship and the "help" Obama has given them.

And the pukes with legs respond to those compliments with name calling and school yard taunts.

Nope., I want my government as far away as possible from the Obama administration, being your "friend" on the international stage means bend over and the KY is on you....
 
MMC said:
wow.gif
did that change from 19 to 81 in favor of Trusting BO. All in less than 40 mins. I wonder how much they trust this Guy.

32-khamenei-ap-v2.jpg



Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has outlined a nine-step plan to “eliminate” Israel.

The Supreme Leader of Iran’s official Twitter account has posted a set of answers to what are described as the “key questions”, saying that Israel is guilty of a host of “crimes”.

In July Khamenei described Israel as a “rabid dog” for its bombardment of Gaza....snip~

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei outlines plan to 'eliminate' Israel - Middle East - World - The Independent

B1_LKrrIcAAMAZB.png
Click to expand...

From your link.

However the statement adds that “the elimination of Israel does not mean the massacre of the Jewish people in this region”.

The statement proposes a referendum in which “all the original people of Palestine including Muslims, Christians and Jews” could vote.....

What's wrong with the nine points that both you and the Independent are mischaracterizing?
 
Montecresto said:
He said Obama's deal "doesn't prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, it paves the way", and for that, and for his false claims for twenty five years now, he's a god damn liar and a freak that should never be allowed in the halls of congress. Btw, I have opposed Netanyahu since before Obama was ever heard of. He doesn't give any marching orders to me. I only hope that we don't witness a democratic controlled congress do the same thing some day and point the detractors to Boehner and the 114th congress.
Click to expand...

he was brought in to give us Israels perspective on the matter.... which, is kinda important , being they are our closest ally in the region.
Obama can ( and probably will) ignore Israel on the matter and go through with whatever deal he thinks will work ( it won't, but that's neither her nor there)

my " marching orders" comment was in regards to Obama, not Bibi.

I hope to further see Congress do it's job without seeking the the permission of the imperial President... regardless of which party is controlling which branch.
 
Montecresto said:
From your link.

However the statement adds that “the elimination of Israel does not mean the massacre of the Jewish people in this region”.

The statement proposes a referendum in which “all the original people of Palestine including Muslims, Christians and Jews” could vote.....

What's wrong with the nine points that both you and the Independent are mischaracterizing?
Click to expand...

Nothing at all that's why it is reported as is, like all the other New Sources reported it......how you missed the rest of it in looking to defend Iran, is quite amusing.




It says the theoretical resultant government would then decide upon whether the latter group could remain in the country.

But it goes on to say that if such a referendum cannot be achieved then “powerful confrontation and resolute and armed resistance” is the only solution, as compromise is not possible.....snip~
 
Thrilla said:
he was brought in to give us Israels perspective on the matter.... which, is kinda important , being they are our closest ally in the region.
Obama can ( and probably will) ignore Israel on the matter and go through with whatever deal he thinks will work ( it won't, but that's neither her nor there)

my " marching orders" comment was in regards to Obama, not Bibi.

I hope to further see Congress do it's job without seeking the the permission of the imperial President... regardless of which party is controlling which branch.
Click to expand...

It continues to be pointed out that congress isn't required to seek executive branch permission on something like this, but that the executive branch would be in the loop on it for suggestions, criticisms, and any other input, from the beginning. Not that 60 minutes prior to an Israeli acceptance would the WH be informed. It's much more than a courtesy. But, the GOP hatred of this president has overridden protocol, logic, discipline, ethics, and security, in an attempt to snub and humiliate him. Knock yourselves out, and don't be surprised if a democratic controlled congress doesn't pull the same cheap shot on a republican president someday, while pointing at Boehner and the 114th.
 
MMC said:
Nothing at all that's why it is reported as is, like all the other New Sources reported it......how you missed the rest of it in looking to defend Iran, is quite amusing.




It says the theoretical resultant government would then decide upon whether the latter group could remain in the country.

But it goes on to say that if such a referendum cannot be achieved then “powerful confrontation and resolute and armed resistance” is the only solution, as compromise is not possible.....snip~
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not unlike any governments approach when compromise and all other diplomacy fails.
 
disneydude said:
Well considering that Reagan supplied most of the arms to Iraq to build up their army during the Iran/Iraq war....it would have at least made more logical sense.
Click to expand...

He also sold arms to Iran. Secretly. To get money to use to support an insurgency in Nicaragua.
Quite the hero, Ronnie was.
 
MMC said:
Looks like 19 are trusting BO Peep so far huh, NP. :2wave: Despite the discovery of the Sunset Clause.



'Sunset Clause' Is Iran Deal's Fatal Flaw.....


The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the "right to enrich." It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern "about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed . . . development of a nuclear payload for a missile."

Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the "sunset clause." President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want. Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would re-enter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview last December, as "a very successful regional power." A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.

Meanwhile, Iran's intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It's not even part of these negotiations. Why is Iran building them? You don't build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example. Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.....snip~

Iran Deal: Sunset Clause Is Fatal Flaw
Click to expand...
The question was who did you trust more- I have no faith whatsoever in the PM of Israel. Rather simple question.
If this question was asked of Canada vice Israel, who would be picked.

The deal can be easily blocked in both houses or stronger sanctions imposed with more than enough votes to override Obama's Veto.
 
Neither really but Bibi is smarter than Obama so I chose him.
 
Ryan5 said:
Neither really but Bibi is smarter than Obama so I chose him.
Click to expand...

Bibi's been crying wolf on Iran for a quarter century. What do you mean he's smarter?? Every couple years, Iran is a couple years away from a nuclear weapon. You'd think people would learn a lesson about lying heads of State that have something to gain by advancing such fears!
 
Never before have I seen a US president (or any leader) get so owned by so many foreign leaders as Obama has. It's humiliating truly. He has to be sweating it.


-Putin has owned him (Invaded another country and took over part of it)

-China + Russia has owned him over spying allegations via Edward Snowden

-A little IT nerd contractor guy has owned him and humiliated the entire country and is still doing so at Putin's behest

-Netanyahu openly spits in his face by coming to Washington and speaking to Congress and visibly being more popular!


Simply laughable. Obama is definitely amateur hour and every foreign leader and nerdy IT contractor even knows it.
 
Montecresto said:
It continues to be pointed out that congress isn't required to seek executive branch permission on something like this, but that the executive branch would be in the loop on it for suggestions, criticisms, and any other input, from the beginning. Not that 60 minutes prior to an Israeli acceptance would the WH be informed. It's much more than a courtesy. But, the GOP hatred of this president has overridden protocol, logic, discipline, ethics, and security, in an attempt to snub and humiliate him. Knock yourselves out, and don't be surprised if a democratic controlled congress doesn't pull the same cheap shot on a republican president someday, while pointing at Boehner and the 114th.
Click to expand...

seems like this unofficial protocol is a bit one sided , yes?.... or does the President inform Congress he will be speaking to foreign officials each and every time he does it?... you know, to seek suggestions, criticisms, or other input...

in any event, this unofficial protocol breach is no excuse for sitting congresscritters and administration officials to act like petulant children.... they should have done the adult thing and entertained Bibi speaking.

additionally, i don't really see Boehner thing as being partisan...by that i mean he invited Bibi to speak to the whole of Congress, not just Republicans.
Democrats did, in fact , invite Bibi to speak directly to their party members... thankfully ,he turned them down and decided to keep the whole affair above ground and nonpartisan.
I wouldn't be so supportive if 1 party invited him to speak only to them and tried to leave the other party out of it.... that **** isn't cool at all.... it's Congressional business, not party business.

again, I won't mind at all if a Democratic controlled Congress does the same identical thing...it won't bother me in the least.
 
The lefties have compromised the poll again by voting many times....The actual count by name is 16-12 not 83-12......Sad these lefties have to act like children.
 
Ryan5 said:
Never before have I seen a US president (or any leader) get so owned by so many foreign leaders as Obama has. It's humiliating truly. He has to be sweating it.


-Putin has owned him (Invaded another country and took over part of it)

-China + Russia has owned him over spying allegations via Edward Snowden

-A little IT nerd contractor guy has owned him and humiliated the entire country and is still doing so at Putin's behest

-Netanyahu openly spits in his face by coming to Washington and speaking to Congress and visibly being more popular!


Simply laughable. Obama is definitely amateur hour and every foreign leader and nerdy IT contractor even knows it.
Click to expand...

We'll, if you approved of Netanyahu coming to congress Monday, then you must like the humiliation. Btw, Snowden's disclosures indict Bush as well as Obama. And what exactly was Obama suppose to do to prevent Putin from going into Crimea. Nice to see the acknowledgement that Netanyahu's speech was equal to spitting in Obama's face. Anybody that hates Obama enough to gloat over seeing their president be spat upon by a foreign leader standing in our halls of congress is UNAMERICAN. And there's NOTHING laughable about this situation.
 
Montecresto said:
Bibi's been crying wolf on Iran for a quarter century. What do you mean he's smarter?? Every couple years, Iran is a couple years away from a nuclear weapon. You'd think people would learn a lesson about lying heads of State that have something to gain by advancing such fears!
Click to expand...

And Iran has been as well. Old Jewish proverb - 3 sides to a coin.
 
Thrilla said:
seems like this unofficial protocol is a bit one sided , yes?.... or does the President inform Congress he will be speaking to foreign officials each and every time he does it?... you know, to seek suggestions, criticisms, or other input...

in any event, this unofficial protocol breach is no excuse for sitting congresscritters and administration officials to act like petulant children.... they should have done the adult thing and entertained Bibi speaking.

additionally, i don't really see Boehner thing as being partisan...by that i mean he invited Bibi to speak to the whole of Congress, not just Republicans.
Democrats did, in fact , invite Bibi to speak directly to their party members... thankfully ,he turned them down and decided to keep the whole affair above ground and nonpartisan.
I wouldn't be so supportive if 1 party invited him to speak only to them and tried to leave the other party out of it.... that **** isn't cool at all.... it's Congressional business, not party business.

again, I won't mind at all if a Democratic controlled Congress does the same identical thing...it won't bother me in the least.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the president is the face on America. And it would be polite to inform him of your intentions to humiliate him on the global stage before doing so! To the bolded, I appreciate your consistency with that. :applaud
 
Last edited:
JANFU said:
And Iran has been as well. Old Jewish proverb - 3 sides to a coin.
Click to expand...

Good proverb, hadn't thought of it, but there are three sides to a coin aren't there? So what do you mean Iran has been as well? Has been what, crying wolf, and promoting fear?
 
Montecresto said:
We'll, if you approved of Netanyahu coming to congress Monday, then you must like the humiliation. Btw, Snowden's disclosures indict Bush as well as Obama. And what exactly was Obama suppose to do to prevent Putin from going into Crimea. Nice to see the acknowledgement that Netanyahu's speech was equal to spitting in Obama's face. Anybody that hates Obama enough to gloat over seeing their president be spat upon by a foreign leader standing in our halls of congress is UNAMERICAN. And there's NOTHING laughable about this situation.
Click to expand...


-Netanyahu doing what he did is a failure on Obama's end, not Netanyahu's. If you allow, as the US president (Emperor, basically), relations with your land battleship in a far-off region to deteriorate so extensively that their PM is talking to your political enemies on national TV in Congress back home in the heart of the empire, that is a direct indictment of YOU as US president and your utter failure on allowing it to get to that point. One cannot blame the Israeli PM for jumping through an open window. The real question is why was that window open to jump through? Why have things been allowed to reach that level of vitriol? That's political failure on his end. You don't blame Cicero for being Cicero. You blame the idiotic Emperor for allowing Cicero the opportunity.

-Wanting to hear what a great ally of ours in a far off, hostile region has to say on an issue doesn't amount to being unpatriotic. NOT wanting to hear him is what is unpatriotic.
 
Ryan5 said:
-Netanyahu doing what he did is a failure on Obama's end, not Netanyahu's. If you allow, as the US president (Emperor, basically), relations with your land battleship in a far-off region to deteriorate so extensively that their PM is talking to your political enemies on national TV in Congress back home in the heart of the empire, that is a direct indictment of YOU as US president and your utter failure on allowing it to get to that point. One cannot blame the Israeli PM for jumping through an open window. The real question is why was that window open to jump through? Why have things been allowed to reach that level of vitriol? That's political failure on his end. You don't blame Cicero for being Cicero. You blame the idiotic Emperor for allowing Cicero the opportunity.

-Wanting to hear what a great ally of ours in a far off, hostile region has to say on an issue doesn't amount to being unpatriotic. NOT wanting to hear him is what is unpatriotic.
Click to expand...

Unpatriotic of what, Israel. Sorry, that's the most ****ed up explanation in defense of that rat bastard I've heard yet. Sick too that you'd get pleasure from seeing a foreigner here disrespecting your president.
 
Montecresto said:
Unpatriotic of what, Israel. Sorry, that's the most ****ed up explanation in defense of that rat bastard I've heard yet. Sick too that you'd get pleasure from seeing a foreigner here disrespecting your president.
Click to expand...

He's not my president, I didn't vote for him. I enjoyed watching that depraved radical California district social leftist witch Pelosi fake tears and throw a hissy fit of absolute disgrace against a good man like Netanyahu. Obama simply doesn't know foreign policy and is easily exploitable by wiser elements such as Bibi and for this I'm supposed to be upset? He's a weak president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom