^ Ten thousand bussed in phony protesters. Typical right wing garbage.
^ Ten thousand bussed in phony protesters. Typical right wing garbage.
Yes , agreed - it was a complete win for Iran.
Pseu, you are articulate and most likely a much better man.
A man who simply shouldn't allow himself to be lowered by utilizing such expressions of hatred usually discovered being spoken by the garbage of humanity commonly found in the gutter of decency. (IMHO).
Never knew you would be a hillary supporter. You should vote for her - she represents you nicely.Originally Posted by Boon Mee
bsnub, NYC is trying to get it's minimum wage for fast-food franchises to catch up with Seattle's $15/hr - so how is one to make end's meet in the Big Apple ?
Seriously , you don't require busing in 10,000 protestors within a city of 8 Million.
NYC doesn't work that way. It's easier enough to walk or take a subway.
They get 50,000 to pay to watch a baseball game and over 100,000 for free concerts in the Park.
Finally, it is New York City. The demographics of it will reveal truth.
Ex-congressman and war criminal...Originally Posted by Boon Mee
What a fine spokesman for the cause.
INdeed - Rachel Maddow has probably said that Iran was responsible for 9/11Originally Posted by PeeCoffee
.... Again and again, pundits who championed the invasion of Iraq—people like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer—appear on television advocating the same worldview they advocated in 2002 and 2003, and get to pretend that nothing has happened over the last 15 years to throw that worldview into question. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which championed the invasion of Iraq (which is not to suggest that AIPAC caused it), can mount a mammoth lobbying campaign against the Iran deal without being asked why, given its track record, anyone should listen to it this time. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who in 2002 told Congress that “There is no question whatsoever that Saddam is … advancing towards the development of nuclear weapons” and that “If you take out … Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region,” can appear on Sunday show after Sunday show smugly lecturing the host about the state of Iran’s nuclear program and the Iran deal’s implications for the Middle East without having his earlier comments read back to him.
...To a degree that will baffle historians, the political-intellectual complex that made the Iraq War possible remains intact, and powerful. Amnesia is part of the reason why. If Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and Benjamin Netanyahu knew that before denouncing the Iran deal they’d be required to account for their views on Iraq, they might not show up in the green room. If they did, their television appearances would take a radically different course from the course they generally take today.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/gaping-ho...-politics.html
Same old people, pushing the same old losing wars. Frankly, they are doing the Democrats and Hillary a great favor- by reminding people of the consequences of the disastrous Bush administration.
A great nation like the USA did not gain it's independence from colonialism all those years ago, only to declare itself a colony of a hawkish, warmongering Israel.
A hearty well done to the Obama administration. You have made our world safer, and you didn't even have to torture anyone to do it.
^ Lay them out with the details for us to read and discuss?
Excellent analysis by Fareed Zakaria.
Obama’s critics are the real gamblers on Iran
The idea that China, Russia and the European Union would maintain sanctions against Iran if Washington turned down a deal that they painstakingly negotiated and fully embrace is far-fetched. China is desperate to buy Iran’s (discounted) oil. Russia is already negotiating to sell it nuclear-power technology and machinery. And the French foreign minister has scheduled a trip to Tehran next week, presumably to do what that country’s diplomats always do: promote French corporate interests.
It is worth recalling that when the Obama administration was putting together the last round of U.N. sanctions against Iran, many Republicans dismissed the effort. In an August 2009 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled “Sanctions Won’t Work Against Iran,” the Bush administration’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, argued that the other major powers would never go along with such sanctions — and if they did, they wouldn’t change Iran’s behavior anyway. Now Republicans say that these same sanctions are wondrously effective, if only the administration would keep them on indefinitely.
The crucial reason the sanctions have been so effective — more than critics expected — is that they are comprehensive. Leaky sanctions, especially when the leaks are in major countries such as China, Russia and India, are worthless, perhaps even almost counterproductive. They don’t inflict much pain on the regime and actually benefit the hard-liners who control the few gateways in and out of the economy.
There is a profound gap between the United States and the world in the perception of the sanctions against Iran. For many in the United States, the sanctions are a mechanism to punish an evil regime. But for most of the other countries involved, the sanctions were enacted specifically to bring Iran to the negotiating table. These countries would not allow them to be turned into a permanent mechanism to strangle Iran. They all have relations with Iran, traded with it pretty freely until 2012, and intend to resume and expand these ties.
Finally, some who argue against the deal believe that the United States should simply stand firm and Iran will either cave or crumble. Anyone who has dealt with Iranians knows that they are a proud, nationalistic people. The Islamic republic has endured three decades of U.S. sanctions, a nine-year war against Iraq (in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Iranians) and other international pressures. If tiny Cuba and North Korea haven’t caved after decades of much greater isolation, it is hard to imagine Iran doing so.
As for the belief that Iran will collapse soon, there is little evidence for this hope. More important, a more democratic Iran would likely still support a nuclear program. In fact, the leader of the 2009 Green Movement, Mir Hossein Mousavi, argued that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was making too many concessions to the West regarding Iran’s nuclear rights.
Obama’s critics say he is gambling that Iran will comply with the accord. In fact, the administration is making a calculated bet that Iran will be constrained by international pressure, intrusive inspections, verification mechanisms and the prospect of snapback sanctions. The deal’s opponents have conjured up a fantasy scenario in which the world will sign up for more sanctions, Tehran will meekly return to the table with further concessions, or perhaps the Islamic republic will itself implode — and its successors will then denounce and dismantle the nuclear program. To bet on this scenario is the real gamble, a high stakes one with little evidence to support it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...20d_story.html
Tell us Hairy, how does it feel to be totally clueless on 99% of all issues raised aboard here, eh?
SUSAN RICE ADMITS SECRET ‘SIDE DEALS’ WITH IRAN
This is the gal who claimed it was the video that caused Benghazie so her credibility is somewhat suspect:
"White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice admitted the existence of two secret “side deals” between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to accompany the main Iran nuclear deal agreed last week between Iran and the P5+1 powers (U.S., Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China).
The two secret deals, which cover the Parchin military site and the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s nuclear program, were revealed Wednesday by Sens. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)60%
(R-AK) and Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS)78%
, who had learned of the deals after meeting July 17 with IAEA in Vienna.
In a press release, Cotton and Pomepeo said they had been told that the deals “will remain secret and will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the public.” That, they said, violated the Obama administration’s commitment to provide the full text of the Iran deal to Congress for consideration under the Corker Bill (The Iran Nuclear Review Agreement Act).
Pompeo said:
This agreement is the worst of backroom deals. In addition to allowing Iran to keep its nuclear program, missile program, American hostages, and terrorist network, the Obama administration has failed to make public separate side deals that have been struck for the ‘inspection’ of one of the most important nuclear sites—the Parchin military complex. Not only does this violate the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, it is asking Congress to agree to a deal that it cannot review.
The failure to disclose the content of these side agreements begs the question, ‘What is the Obama administration hiding?’ Even members of Congress who are sympathetic to this deal cannot and must not accept a deal we aren’t even aware of. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up and demand to see the complete deal.
Cotton added:
In failing to secure the disclosure of these secret side deals, the Obama administration is asking Congress and the American people to trust, but not verify. What we cannot do is trust the terror-sponsoring, anti-American, outlaw regime that governs Iran and that has been deceiving the world on its nuclear weapons work for years. Congress’s evaluation of this deal must be based on hard facts and full information. That we are only now discovering that parts of this dangerous agreement are being kept secret begs the question of what other elements may also be secret and entirely free from public scrutiny.
Rice acknowledged the deals Wednesday and told reporters that their contents would be revealed to lawmakers in classified briefinds, according to The Hill.
Update: Cotton and Pompeo have written a letter to Obama, pointing out that he has failed to comply with the Corker bill and asking him to transmit the two side deals immediately:
Failure to produce these two side agreements leaves Congress blind on critical information regarding Iran’s potential path to being a nuclear power and will have detrimental consequences for the ability of members to assess the JCPOA. We request you transmit these two side agreements to Congress immediately so we may perform our duty to assess the many important questions related to the JCPOA"
Susan Rice Admits Secret 'Side Deals' with Iran - Breitbart
Can't wait to find out what these side deals contain, can you? We already know they don't include the American hostages still held by I-Ran...
How chilling- 'secret side deals with the IAEA' . Scary stuff (incidentally, if they were so bluddy secret, why tell of the existence of them in the first place). Much more concerning are the 'secret side deals' with Israel, to supply them with yet more arms at the expense of the US taxpayer. Rumors they are letting Jonathan Pollard (Israeli spy/US traitor) out too. And whatever else.
If the founder was representative of his rag today, no wonder he keeled over at a young age. I find it so amusing, I even look at Breitbart every now and again. It's like a snapshot of the rw loonysphere.
Last edited by sabang; 26-07-2015 at 08:48 AM.
Would you buy a used car from this guy?
Three elements of the Iran deal that concern lawmakers
Sunset provisions
Sanctions relief
Size of Iran's nuclear program
For the full-meal-deal go here: Three elements of the Iran deal that concern lawmakers | Washington Examiner
btw. it's not a done-deal yet so don't go out and celebrate with John (Purple Heart) Kerry who reckons he's a lock for the next Pulitzer Prize...
Mike Huckabee Says Obama Is Marching Israelis ‘To The Door Of The Oven’
Addicting Info ? Yes, He Really DID Go There: Mike Huckabee Says Obama Is Marching Israelis ?To The Door Of The Oven?
Yes, the poor defenseless Israelis are being loaded onto boxcars as we speak.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)