Americans First!!!!!

[pbel]

Obama: Does Romney want

President Barack Obama hit back hard in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday at Mitt Romney's criticisms of his handling of Syria and Iran, saying that if the Republican standard-bearer "is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so."

Obama also brushed aside talk that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressuring him to take a harder line on Iran's suspicious nuclear program — source of some of Romney's sharpest campaign-trail criticisms.

"When it comes to our national security decisions-- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that's out there," the president said.

 

[Hossfly]

Obama: Does Romney want

President Barack Obama hit back hard in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday at Mitt Romney's criticisms of his handling of Syria and Iran, saying that if the Republican standard-bearer "is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so."

Obama also brushed aside talk that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressuring him to take a harder line on Iran's suspicious nuclear program — source of some of Romney's sharpest campaign-trail criticisms.

"When it comes to our national security decisions-- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that's out there," the president said.

OK.

Obama's new flag looks like bloody Benghazi wall :: TeaParty.org

 

[Roudy]

So what you're saying is that letting Iran acquire nukes will not affect America at all. Somebody needed to get that memo out to the Europeans and the UN that have imposed the harshest sanctions ever on Iran. They've been duped, it's all for Israel. LOL

 

[pbel]

So what you're saying is that letting Iran acquire nukes will not affect America at all. Somebody needed to get that memo out to the Europeans and the UN that have imposed the harshest sanctions ever on Iran. They've been duped, it's all for Israel. LOL

Unfortunately no can stop a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons...I think all nations, N. Korea as an example will do anything when in fear of their enemies...the ME will have nukes because Armament Parity between spheres of influence is in the Bible of International Relations...

The smart thing would be to sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty by all ME members including Israel by getting rid of her nukes.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

So what you're saying is that letting Iran acquire nukes will not affect America at all. Somebody needed to get that memo out to the Europeans and the UN that have imposed the harshest sanctions ever on Iran. They've been duped, it's all for Israel. LOL

Like Netanyahu says in his speeches, anything that starts out with the Jews, ends up engulfing the whole world, as we learned from WW2. It's true that Iran's first priority is destroying Israel, but it won't stop there.

 

[irosie91]

you are a joke Peeballs

 

[toomuchtime_]

Obama: Does Romney want

President Barack Obama hit back hard in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday at Mitt Romney's criticisms of his handling of Syria and Iran, saying that if the Republican standard-bearer "is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so."

Obama also brushed aside talk that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressuring him to take a harder line on Iran's suspicious nuclear program — source of some of Romney's sharpest campaign-trail criticisms.

"When it comes to our national security decisions-- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that's out there," the president said.

But both the US House and Senate have rejected Obama's position on Iran and backed Netanyahu's. Both houses of Congress have overwhelmingly passed resolutions insisting the US prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear capable nation, Netanyahu's position rather than just preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear nation, that is, actually building a bomb, Obama's position.

Diplomats try to minimize this difference in position between Obama and Netanyahu, but it a huge difference. A nuclear capable nation will have acquired all the technology and all the fissile material necessary to build a nuclear weapon so that it could build one in a matter of weeks, but has not yet made that decision. Obama has if effect drawn his red line at allowing Iran to become nuclear capable but not allowing it to actually build a nuclear weapon, an implausible position that smacks of dishonesty, since once Iran was nuclear capable it would take longer for the US to rally support for a strike than it would take Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu's position is that Iran must be prevented from becoming nuclear capable, since once it has become nuclear capable, the world would be committed to and endless but unenforceable policy of containment of an Iran that would be an imminent nuclear threat to the US and all of our allies in the ME.

So when Obama says he is blocking out the "noise" he means he is blocking out "noise" not only from the US' most important strategic ally, Israel, but also "noise" from the American people as expressed by their elected representatives in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in nearly unanimous bipartisan resolutions backing Netanyahu's position and rejecting Obama's.

 

[pbel]

Obama: Does Romney want

President Barack Obama hit back hard in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday at Mitt Romney's criticisms of his handling of Syria and Iran, saying that if the Republican standard-bearer "is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so."

Obama also brushed aside talk that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressuring him to take a harder line on Iran's suspicious nuclear program — source of some of Romney's sharpest campaign-trail criticisms.

"When it comes to our national security decisions-- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that's out there," the president said.

But both the US House and Senate have rejected Obama's position on Iran and backed Netanyahu's. Both houses of Congress have overwhelmingly passed resolutions insisting the US prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear capable nation, Netanyahu's position rather than just preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear nation, that is, actually building a bomb, Obama's position.

Diplomats try to minimize this difference in position between Obama and Netanyahu, but it a huge difference. A nuclear capable nation will have acquired all the technology and all the fissile material necessary to build a nuclear weapon so that it could build one in a matter of weeks, but has not yet made that decision. Obama has if effect drawn his red line at allowing Iran to become nuclear capable but not allowing it to actually build a nuclear weapon, an implausible position that smacks of dishonesty, since once Iran was nuclear capable it would take longer for the US to rally support for a strike than it would take Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu's position is that Iran must be prevented from becoming nuclear capable, since once it has become nuclear capable, the world would be committed to and endless but unenforceable policy of containment of an Iran that would be an imminent nuclear threat to the US and all of our allies in the ME.

So when Obama says he is blocking out the "noise" he means he is blocking out "noise" not only from the US' most important strategic ally, Israel, but also "noise" from the American people as expressed by their elected representatives in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in nearly unanimous bipartisan resolutions backing Netanyahu's position and rejecting Obama's.

No Sovereign Nation can be denied nuclear weapons if they are determed to get one. N. Korea being a good example...I think overall Pakistan would unleash her nukes on Israel in an all out war with Islamic Countries...

Its getting scary.

 

[Desperado]

Obama: Does Romney want

President Barack Obama hit back hard in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday at Mitt Romney's criticisms of his handling of Syria and Iran, saying that if the Republican standard-bearer "is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so."

Obama also brushed aside talk that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressuring him to take a harder line on Iran's suspicious nuclear program — source of some of Romney's sharpest campaign-trail criticisms.

"When it comes to our national security decisions-- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that's out there," the president said.

I wish I could believe him..... That would be Change worth supporting

 

[toomuchtime_]

Obama: Does Romney want

President Barack Obama hit back hard in a "60 Minutes" interview broadcast Sunday at Mitt Romney's criticisms of his handling of Syria and Iran, saying that if the Republican standard-bearer "is suggesting that we should start another war, he should say so."

Obama also brushed aside talk that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been pressuring him to take a harder line on Iran's suspicious nuclear program — source of some of Romney's sharpest campaign-trail criticisms.

"When it comes to our national security decisions-- any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people. And I am going to block out any noise that's out there," the president said.

But both the US House and Senate have rejected Obama's position on Iran and backed Netanyahu's. Both houses of Congress have overwhelmingly passed resolutions insisting the US prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear capable nation, Netanyahu's position rather than just preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear nation, that is, actually building a bomb, Obama's position.

Diplomats try to minimize this difference in position between Obama and Netanyahu, but it a huge difference. A nuclear capable nation will have acquired all the technology and all the fissile material necessary to build a nuclear weapon so that it could build one in a matter of weeks, but has not yet made that decision. Obama has if effect drawn his red line at allowing Iran to become nuclear capable but not allowing it to actually build a nuclear weapon, an implausible position that smacks of dishonesty, since once Iran was nuclear capable it would take longer for the US to rally support for a strike than it would take Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu's position is that Iran must be prevented from becoming nuclear capable, since once it has become nuclear capable, the world would be committed to and endless but unenforceable policy of containment of an Iran that would be an imminent nuclear threat to the US and all of our allies in the ME.

So when Obama says he is blocking out the "noise" he means he is blocking out "noise" not only from the US' most important strategic ally, Israel, but also "noise" from the American people as expressed by their elected representatives in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in nearly unanimous bipartisan resolutions backing Netanyahu's position and rejecting Obama's.

No Sovereign Nation can be denied nuclear weapons if they are determed to get one. N. Korea being a good example...I think overall Pakistan would unleash her nukes on Israel in an all out war with Islamic Countries...

Its getting scary.

Of course a nation can be prevented from becoming nuclear capable if we are determined to stop them. The fact that we failed to take the necessary steps in the past doesn't mean we can't take them in the future. Your daydream about Pakistan nuking Israel, bizarre though it is, is exactly the reason why Iran must be stopped from becoming nuclear capable: even a small regional war the today might kill thousands might kill more people in a day than died in all of WWII if it involved nuclear exchanges.

This is why the US Congress has rejected Obama's proposed policy of containment and demanded Iran be prevented from becoming nuclear capable.

 

[Roudy]

So what you're saying is that letting Iran acquire nukes will not affect America at all. Somebody needed to get that memo out to the Europeans and the UN that have imposed the harshest sanctions ever on Iran. They've been duped, it's all for Israel. LOL

Unfortunately no can stop a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons...I think all nations, N. Korea as an example will do anything when in fear of their enemies...the ME will have nukes because Armament Parity between spheres of influence is in the Bible of International Relations...

The smart thing would be to sign a nuclear non-proliferation treaty by all ME members including Israel by getting rid of her nukes.

Sure you can. We did with Gadaffi. He dismantled all his nuclear developement capability and was removed from the terrorist sponsor nations list. And then came Obama's "Arab Spring".

 

[Roudy]

But both the US House and Senate have rejected Obama's position on Iran and backed Netanyahu's. Both houses of Congress have overwhelmingly passed resolutions insisting the US prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear capable nation, Netanyahu's position rather than just preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear nation, that is, actually building a bomb, Obama's position.

Diplomats try to minimize this difference in position between Obama and Netanyahu, but it a huge difference. A nuclear capable nation will have acquired all the technology and all the fissile material necessary to build a nuclear weapon so that it could build one in a matter of weeks, but has not yet made that decision. Obama has if effect drawn his red line at allowing Iran to become nuclear capable but not allowing it to actually build a nuclear weapon, an implausible position that smacks of dishonesty, since once Iran was nuclear capable it would take longer for the US to rally support for a strike than it would take Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

Netanyahu's position is that Iran must be prevented from becoming nuclear capable, since once it has become nuclear capable, the world would be committed to and endless but unenforceable policy of containment of an Iran that would be an imminent nuclear threat to the US and all of our allies in the ME.

So when Obama says he is blocking out the "noise" he means he is blocking out "noise" not only from the US' most important strategic ally, Israel, but also "noise" from the American people as expressed by their elected representatives in both the House of Representatives and the Senate in nearly unanimous bipartisan resolutions backing Netanyahu's position and rejecting Obama's.

No Sovereign Nation can be denied nuclear weapons if they are determed to get one. N. Korea being a good example...I think overall Pakistan would unleash her nukes on Israel in an all out war with Islamic Countries...

Its getting scary.

Of course a nation can be prevented from becoming nuclear capable if we are determined to stop them. The fact that we failed to take the necessary steps in the past doesn't mean we can't take them in the future. Your daydream about Pakistan nuking Israel, bizarre though it is, is exactly the reason why Iran must be stopped from becoming nuclear capable: even a small regional war the today might kill thousands might kill more people in a day than died in all of WWII if it involved nuclear exchanges.

This is why the US Congress has rejected Obama's proposed policy of containment and demanded Iran be prevented from becoming nuclear capable.

Pakistan's nuclear and military capability are designed only to defend or attack in case of a major all out war with India. Period.

 

[irosie91]

Leave peeballs alone----he is recapitulating the propaganda which was promulgated by the pro hitlerites ----pre and during world war II in fact, even after world war II