If Iran Gets Nukes, Will Liberals Admit that Obama Made a Horrendous Mistake?

[mikegriffith1]

Casting aside his earlier, and repeated, assurances that he would never allow Iran to get nukes, Obama now supports a deal that would allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons in 10 years. If public opinion and/or Congressional action ends up forcing Obama to scale back the deal, he and John Kerry appear determined to at least allow Iran to retain the crucial capability to enrich uranium, which is the vital core of any nuclear weapons program.

Our own State Department has said that Iran is the "world's most active state sponsor of terrorism." The mullahs who run Iran not only deny the Holocaust and swear to obliterate Israel (they recently repeated that promise following Netanyahu's compelling speech to Congress), but they also believe in Twelfth Imam theology, which calls for provoking a world conflict as a necessary step in Islam's conquest of the planet.

So if Iran gets nuclear weapons in 10 years or less, will liberals be willing to admit that Obama made a horrendous, foolish, historic blunder in allowing such a dangerous, radical regime to acquire nukes?

Some reading on Iran:

Article in The Atlantic on the dangers posed by Obama's emerging nuclear deal with Iran

Council on Foreign Relations article on Iran as the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism

Iran and 12th Imam theology

Now the 12th Imam Can Come

AJC webpage with numerous article links on the threat Iran poses to the world (the American Jewish Committee is a very liberal Jewish group)

Needless to say, if Obama had revealed in 2012 that he would support such a dangerous, risky deal with Iran, he likely would have lost to Romney. Obama has probably always favored allowing Iran to get nukes. He grew up as a Muslim for at least part of his childhood, and he associated with radical Muslims and with radical anti-Israeli activists until shortly before he ran for president in 2008. So it's not surprising that he is discarding his earlier promise to never allow Iran to get nukes.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I must admit that Obama's seemingly unbridled interest in making "buddies" with Iran is puzzling to me. I mean, he seems to WANT them to develop a device and is hell bent and determined that they WILL have that ability. I know that Obama despises Israel - hell it's patently obvious in the same way he despises England. He was raised by his communist Father and instructed by his communist mentor Frank Marshall Davis to despise both countries, so I get it.

Oh well, he has, indeed, fundamentally transformed the United States of America - just as he promised he would. And may God have mercy of this country. It's only a matter of time at this point. We WILL reap the whirlwind.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they'll get them. There's nothing to be done that can prevent that. Think tanks have been writing about this for decades and come to this conclusion.

If you attack Iran to disuade their ambitions for nuclear weapons, all you'll achieve is assuring the ambition. You don't generally attack nuclear-armed countries. So the incentive to getting them only increases.

Just as 9/11 brought the US together in an unprecedented way against a common foe, if you attack Iran, the pro-west movement will go silent and the hardline anti-west forces will get stronger.

Best case scenarios for attacks on Iran's nuclear research facilities is you postpone it a few years if that much. But they redouble their efforts and get them anyway. So the only thing to do to prevent their aquiring nuclear weapons is through diplomacy.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Considering the shameful degree of contempt he shows Netanyaho, I suspect his motivations have something to do with the ethnicity of those Iran has announced they want to nuke.

 

[mikegriffith1]

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they'll get them. There's nothing to be done that can prevent that. Think tanks have been writing about this for decades and come to this conclusion.

If you attack Iran to disuade their ambitions for nuclear weapons, all you'll achieve is assuring the ambition. You don't generally attack nuclear-armed countries. So the incentive to getting them only increases.

Just as 9/11 brought the US together in an unprecedented way against a common foe, if you attack Iran, the pro-west movement will go silent and the hardline anti-west forces will get stronger.

Best case scenarios for attacks on Iran's nuclear research facilities is you postpone it a few years if that much. But they redouble their efforts and get them anyway. So the only thing to do to prevent their aquiring nuclear weapons is through diplomacy.

Oh, my goodness. Well, those "think tanks" that say nothing can be done to stop Iran from getting nukes might want to consider the cases of Iraq and Syria, both of whom were prevented from developing nukes by Israeli military strikes.

If we had a leader who understood the danger and had the courage to take strong steps, including military strikes, we could keep Iran from getting nukes.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

How to Defuse Iran s Nuclear Threat RAND

"An Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence.

To prevent the rivalry between Israel and Iran from escalating into armed conflict, the United States should continue to discourage an Israeli military strike while strengthening Israeli capabilities in preparation for a future in which Iran may have managed to acquire nuclear weapons.

A future Iranian regime may view Israel differently. Fundamentalists appear to have consolidated power since the 2009 Iranian presidential election, but the regime exhibits severe fractures and faces critical vulnerabilities."

Reports like this haven't changed in over 20 years (since I began reading them.)

 

[mikegriffith1]

Indeed, were it not for ISRAELI actions, Iran might well be much further along in their nuke program. Israel has assassinated leading Iranian nuclear scientists and has hacked into, temporarily shut down, and destroyed data in Iranian computer networks related to their nuke program.

Imagine if we had a president who recognized the danger and who was willing to take strong steps to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Military strikes might not even be needed, for there are many things that could be done along the lines of what the Israelis have done. We could also take measures to wreak havoc on Iran's economy. And, we could, finally, take substantive steps to help the Iranian opposition with the goal of regime change from within.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they'll get them. There's nothing to be done that can prevent that. Think tanks have been writing about this for decades and come to this conclusion.

If you attack Iran to disuade their ambitions for nuclear weapons, all you'll achieve is assuring the ambition. You don't generally attack nuclear-armed countries. So the incentive to getting them only increases.

Just as 9/11 brought the US together in an unprecedented way against a common foe, if you attack Iran, the pro-west movement will go silent and the hardline anti-west forces will get stronger.

Best case scenarios for attacks on Iran's nuclear research facilities is you postpone it a few years if that much. But they redouble their efforts and get them anyway. So the only thing to do to prevent their aquiring nuclear weapons is through diplomacy.

Sorry, but I don't understand your logic. If Iran is attacked to stop their nuclear ability, it will assure that they will get "the bomb". If nothing is done, they will get "the bomb". So, basically, you are saying that no matter what - they a re getting "the bomb".

Again, and I am not necessarily saying that you are "wrong". However, capitulation assures one thing positively - they WILL develop a nuclear device and they WILL use it against either Israel or the United States - as they have claimed they will repeatedly. These are not people to be "bargained" with as the faculty lounge communist suggests. These people are determined to rid the world of both the Jews - and the Americans. Wonderful trading partners, don't you agree?

So - by doing absolutely nothing, we are encouraging our own demise. Sounds sort of "Neville Chamberlinish" to me. Ah well, I have always had the idea that when the flash occurs - I will enjoy the show from my front porch in the mountains waiting to be vaporized!

 

[paulitician]

Most people still don't get it. Iran already has Nukes. It's had the technology for years. Now it's just angling for a sweetheart deal from the U.S. and the UN. It's following North Korea's lead on that. You can bet American Taxpayer Cash will end up in Iran.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they'll get them. There's nothing to be done that can prevent that. Think tanks have been writing about this for decades and come to this conclusion.

If you attack Iran to disuade their ambitions for nuclear weapons, all you'll achieve is assuring the ambition. You don't generally attack nuclear-armed countries. So the incentive to getting them only increases.

Just as 9/11 brought the US together in an unprecedented way against a common foe, if you attack Iran, the pro-west movement will go silent and the hardline anti-west forces will get stronger.

Best case scenarios for attacks on Iran's nuclear research facilities is you postpone it a few years if that much. But they redouble their efforts and get them anyway. So the only thing to do to prevent their aquiring nuclear weapons is through diplomacy.

Sorry, but I don't understand your logic. If Iran is attacked to stop their nuclear ability, it will assure that they will get "the bomb". If nothing is done, they will get "the bomb". So, basically, you are saying that no matter what - they a re getting "the bomb".

Again, and I am not necessarily saying that you are "wrong". However, capitulation assures one thing positively - they WILL develop a nuclear device and they WILL use it against either Israel or the United States - as they have claimed they will repeatedly. These are not people to be "bargained" with as the faculty lounge communist suggests. These people are determined to rid the world of both the Jews - and the Americans. Wonderful trading partners, don't you agree?

So - by doing absolutely nothing, we are encouraging our own demise. Sounds sort of "Neville Chamberlinish" to me. Ah well, I have always had the idea that when the flash occurs - I will enjoy the show from my front porch in the mountains waiting to be vaporized!

Negotiating isn't doing nothing.

 

[RandallFlagg]

If Iran wants nuclear weapons, they'll get them. There's nothing to be done that can prevent that. Think tanks have been writing about this for decades and come to this conclusion.

If you attack Iran to disuade their ambitions for nuclear weapons, all you'll achieve is assuring the ambition. You don't generally attack nuclear-armed countries. So the incentive to getting them only increases.

Just as 9/11 brought the US together in an unprecedented way against a common foe, if you attack Iran, the pro-west movement will go silent and the hardline anti-west forces will get stronger.

Best case scenarios for attacks on Iran's nuclear research facilities is you postpone it a few years if that much. But they redouble their efforts and get them anyway. So the only thing to do to prevent their aquiring nuclear weapons is through diplomacy.

Sorry, but I don't understand your logic. If Iran is attacked to stop their nuclear ability, it will assure that they will get "the bomb". If nothing is done, they will get "the bomb". So, basically, you are saying that no matter what - they a re getting "the bomb".

Again, and I am not necessarily saying that you are "wrong". However, capitulation assures one thing positively - they WILL develop a nuclear device and they WILL use it against either Israel or the United States - as they have claimed they will repeatedly. These are not people to be "bargained" with as the faculty lounge communist suggests. These people are determined to rid the world of both the Jews - and the Americans. Wonderful trading partners, don't you agree?

So - by doing absolutely nothing, we are encouraging our own demise. Sounds sort of "Neville Chamberlinish" to me. Ah well, I have always had the idea that when the flash occurs - I will enjoy the show from my front porch in the mountains waiting to be vaporized!

Negotiating isn't doing nothing.

I see. Care to enlighten me as to what EXACTLY we are "accomplishing" in Iran? - What? they hold off for 10 years - THEN they begin melting the world? Wouldn't be bad for me necessarily - I'm 71 years old and will most likely be dead by then. But Damn, my Grandkids will get to see the fireball.

Again - your logic escapes me.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Libs never own up to mistakes, it's easier to blame someone else

 

[mikegriffith1]

How to Defuse Iran s Nuclear Threat RAND

"An Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence.

To prevent the rivalry between Israel and Iran from escalating into armed conflict, the United States should continue to discourage an Israeli military strike while strengthening Israeli capabilities in preparation for a future in which Iran may have managed to acquire nuclear weapons.

A future Iranian regime may view Israel differently. Fundamentalists appear to have consolidated power since the 2009 Iranian presidential election, but the regime exhibits severe fractures and faces critical vulnerabilities."

Reports like this haven't changed in over 20 years (since I began reading them.)

I think your logic is backward and irrational and contrary to the lessons of history--even recent history. Israel stopped Iraq and Syria's nuke programs dead in their tracks with military strikes.

Israel has greatly hindered Iran's nuke program by killing leading Iranian nuke scientists and by hacking into Iranian computer networks related to Iran's nuke programs.

"A future Iranian regime" may view Israel differently?! That's highly unlikely, if not fanciful, and there is no credible prospect that the mullahs in Iran are going to lose power anytime soon, especially when we have a president who refuses to impose draconian sanctions and who seems anxious to lift what sanctions we have imposed.

 

[RandallFlagg]

How to Defuse Iran s Nuclear Threat RAND

"An Israeli or American attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would make it more, not less, likely that the Iranian regime would decide to produce and deploy nuclear weapons. Such an attack would also make it more, not less, difficult to contain Iranian influence.

To prevent the rivalry between Israel and Iran from escalating into armed conflict, the United States should continue to discourage an Israeli military strike while strengthening Israeli capabilities in preparation for a future in which Iran may have managed to acquire nuclear weapons.

A future Iranian regime may view Israel differently. Fundamentalists appear to have consolidated power since the 2009 Iranian presidential election, but the regime exhibits severe fractures and faces critical vulnerabilities."

Reports like this haven't changed in over 20 years (since I began reading them.)

I think your logic is backward and irrational and contrary to the lessons of history--even recent history. Israel stopped Iraq and Syria's nuke programs dead in their tracks with military strikes.

Israel has greatly hindered Iran's nuke program by killing leading Iranian nuke scientists and by hacking into Iranian computer networks related to Iran's nuke programs.

"A future Iranian regime" may view Israel differently?! That's highly unlikely, if not fanciful, and there is no credible prospect that the mullahs in Iran are going to lose power anytime soon, especially when we have a president who refuses to impose draconian sanctions and who seems anxious to lift what sanctions we have imposed.

Indeed. The days of the Shah have been over since late 78-79. I know. I was there. Iran will be a theocracy from now on. There is an active Caliphate going on in the Middle East and Iran is hedging it's bets that it will be the major player left standing when this all comes to fruition. Iran, from 1979 to this very minute and for every minute from now on is concerned with one outcome and ONLY one outcome - the destruction of Israel and the United States. Period. End of Story.

 

[BluesLegend]

OP liberals being lying low life scum hypocrites will just lie, deflect, and make excuses. If Obama ate a puppy on live TV liberals would blame the puppy,

 

[Wyatt earp]

Casting aside his earlier, and repeated, assurances that he would never allow Iran to get nukes, Obama now supports a deal that would allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons in 10 years. If public opinion and/or Congressional action ends up forcing Obama to scale back the deal, he and John Kerry appear determined to at least allow Iran to retain the crucial capability to enrich uranium, which is the vital core of any nuclear weapons program.

Our own State Department has said that Iran is the "world's most active state sponsor of terrorism." The mullahs who run Iran not only deny the Holocaust and swear to obliterate Israel (they recently repeated that promise following Netanyahu's compelling speech to Congress), but they also believe in Twelfth Imam theology, which calls for provoking a world conflict as a necessary step in Islam's conquest of the planet.

So if Iran gets nuclear weapons in 10 years or less, will liberals be willing to admit that Obama made a horrendous, foolish, historic blunder in allowing such a dangerous, radical regime to acquire nukes?

Some reading on Iran:

Article in The Atlantic on the dangers posed by Obama's emerging nuclear deal with Iran

Council on Foreign Relations article on Iran as the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism

Iran and 12th Imam theology

Now the 12th Imam Can Come

AJC webpage with numerous article links on the threat Iran poses to the world (the American Jewish Committee is a very liberal Jewish group)

Needless to say, if Obama had revealed in 2012 that he would support such a dangerous, risky deal with Iran, he likely would have lost to Romney. Obama has probably always favored allowing Iran to get nukes. He grew up as a Muslim for at least part of his childhood, and he associated with radical Muslims and with radical anti-Israeli activists until shortly before he ran for president in 2008. So it's not surprising that he is discarding his earlier promise to never allow Iran to get nukes.

OP you dont understand the liberal mind...

They want, let me repeat they want Iran to get nukes, in their pea brain minds they think it is FAIR and the USA can not bully them , they fucking think Iran Wouldn't use them.

They hate Israel with a passion and they so hate the US military, even tho it provides Thousands of Union jobs.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Libs never own up to mistakes, it's easier to blame someone else

Yup 6 years plus they still blame bush Jr.

Almost 30 years latter they still blame Regan

The only thing I blame billy Clinton for Is setting the bar so low, then we elected two worse presidents after him bush jr... The bar got even lower... Then came along Obama...

We are at the bottom of the pit now.. Thank god Hillary is the front runner of the democrats, maybe she can start raising the bar if she wins and make up for her husband.

 

[Staidhup]

It will not mater, simply too late. The Democrats will never admit an error in judgement or policy, never have, never will.

 

[Edgetho]

If Iran Gets Nukes, Will Liberals Admit that Obama Made a Horrendous Mistake?

No

 

[LoneLaugher]

If. Iran were the First Nation to get them....and it was our responsibility to prevent it...maybe. But...since shires of nations have them.....and it isn't our responsibility....then no.