I'm curious: are repubs dumb enough to think Iran would roll over and do whatever the West wants?

[Theowl32]

I can't understand this Iran fear. A third world country half a world away from the US has US citizens pissing their pants with anxiety.

Yeah, I am not sure you have any clue on how wars start. Especially, how the first two world wars started.

Yeah, you are clueless.

 

[cnm]

I can't understand this Iran fear. A third world country half a world away from the US has US citizens pissing their pants with anxiety.

Yeah, I am not sure you have any clue on how wars start. Especially, how the first two world wars started.

Yeah, you are clueless.

Iran had nothing to do with them you idiot.

 

[Theowl32]

I can't understand this Iran fear. A third world country half a world away from the US has US citizens pissing their pants with anxiety.

Yeah, I am not sure you have any clue on how wars start. Especially, how the first two world wars started.

Yeah, you are clueless.

Iran had nothing to do with them you idiot.

OMFG!!!

I just hate fucking liberals.

They are so fucking stupid. Holy fucking shit!

 

[Jantje_Smit]

Yeah, I am not sure you have any clue on how wars start. Especially, how the first two world wars started.

I thought that was the fault of the evil Germans

 

[2aguy]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

No, obama isn't weak, he is stupid...he wants them to have a nuclear weapon. Obama didn't make concessions, he supports them getting all that money. No one expects Iran to do what republicans want and the stupid ones are the democrats because they actually think this deal is real. It is a sham, and has no basis in reality. This simply gives Iran their money and their ballistic missles and allows them to build their nuke without being hassled by the west.....

 

[2aguy]

They think Trump will scare them into doing what he demands........

What in the fuck do you think Obama has been doing for the last eight years?

His job? Creating an agreement where there was none before.

boy...you guys still haven't looked up Chamberlain, have you?

 

[sakinago]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

No, no deal and continued sanctions so Iran cannot get billions, and buy really really good ICBMs from Russia and China, and get better access to refined radioactive materials is better. Iran is quite happy with the deal and display that with their chants in PARLIAMENT of death to America. I wonder what their intentions are?

What value did we gain from this deal? Inspections with Irans permission? Did we already forget that they were testing emp launches right off of our coast 2 years ago?

This was a case of doing something rather than nothing, instead of doing the right thing. A feather in the hat for Obama who will say, "I've made a deal with Iran!" But not mention it's a deal for the sake of a deal, not our best interest

 

[Roudy]

Always the spoiler and fuckup, this is a president and a goofy administration with absolutely no clue as to what they're doing.

Here are the 2012 Swift banking sanctions, pushed by the republicans and resisted by Oblahblah, that finally caused some effect on the Iranian economy. In essence, the republicans brought Iran to the table and Obama blew it for America and the world. What a disaster this president is:

Obama administration takes back seat on Iran sanctions

Congress and Europe have been much more aggressive in punishing Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons program.

February 17, 2012|By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

Top administration officials late last year were strongly resistant when Congress slapped Iran's central bank with harsh sanctions. The European Union then went further, however, imposing an embargo to halt purchases of Iranian oil by European nations over the ensuing five months.

This month, Congress began crafting legislation that would essentially cut Iran out of the global clearinghouse for international financial transactions known as SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The far-reaching step could inflict severe damage to Iran's economy by restricting the ability of banks and other institutions to move funds in or out of the country.

On Friday, SWIFT announced that it was "ready to implement sanctions against Iranian financial institutions" in response to new regulations the EU is set to enact.

Mark Dubowitz, an energy expert who has been advising Congress on sanctions, said the Obama administration has tried to add sanctions "in a measured way to assure international support and to avoid anything that would spook oil and financial markets."

But as concern over Iran's nuclear progress has intensified, members of Congress, with support from the French and British governments, "have really taken the lead in being aggressive," said Dubowitz, who is executive director of a pro-sanctions group called Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The latest sanctions clearly are having an effect. In recent weeks, the value of the Iranian currency has plummeted and prices for food and other consumer goods have soared, causing hardship for ordinary Iranians and putting political pressure on the regime.

A major crisis with Iran carries political risks for the White House. A war or other disruptive event that causes a sharp rise in oil prices could endanger the United States' fragile economic recovery and probably President Obama's chances for reelection.

As a result, the White House has had to scramble to keep up with the pace set by Congress and the Europeans. While critics have long accused Obama of "leading from behind" by empowering other countries to carry out America's bidding on world crises, the administration is now trying to avoid the appearance of "following from behind."

Administration officials insist they have been aggressive on Iran. They point to their latest action, an announcement Thursday that the U.S. will blacklist Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security for its support of Syrian President Bashar Assad's brutal repression of opposition protests, as well as for its backing of militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Don't you possess the ability to think critically or does your partisan nature just get in the way? How is it possible for republican lawmakers in the US to legislate a Belgium consortium subject to the laws of the European Union?

So even when presented with the truth from a highly leftist / liberal newspaper that the Obama administration was out to give Iran a break in 2012, while the repubs pushed for and managed to get the tougher bank swift sanctions which caused the Iranian economy to collapse, you mumble a totally irrelevant whiney partisan response.

Truth in the article? The truth was that SWIFT cut off Iran from their system pursuant to the laws of the EU and that was a successful technique in hampering Iran's ability to conduct it's business. The rest of the article reads like an opinion piece, it's partisan tripe.
My response wasn't partisan in any way. It was just a question, which you failed to answer.

Keep up will ya? LA Times is a leftist partisan paper, and a daily ass kisser of Obama. SWIFT sanctions were pushed by the republicans and strongly resisted by the Obama.

 

[Roudy]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

No, obama isn't weak, he is stupid...he wants them to have a nuclear weapon. Obama didn't make concessions, he supports them getting all that money. No one expects Iran to do what republicans want and the stupid ones are the democrats because they actually think this deal is real. It is a sham, and has no basis in reality. This simply gives Iran their money and their ballistic missles and allows them to build their nuke without being hassled by the west.....

The Obama administration had already hinted at accepting a nuclear armed Iran that could be "contained" years before this non deal came to fruition.

 

[Tehon]

Always the spoiler and fuckup, this is a president and a goofy administration with absolutely no clue as to what they're doing.

Here are the 2012 Swift banking sanctions, pushed by the republicans and resisted by Oblahblah, that finally caused some effect on the Iranian economy. In essence, the republicans brought Iran to the table and Obama blew it for America and the world. What a disaster this president is:

Obama administration takes back seat on Iran sanctions

Congress and Europe have been much more aggressive in punishing Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons program.

February 17, 2012|By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

Top administration officials late last year were strongly resistant when Congress slapped Iran's central bank with harsh sanctions. The European Union then went further, however, imposing an embargo to halt purchases of Iranian oil by European nations over the ensuing five months.

This month, Congress began crafting legislation that would essentially cut Iran out of the global clearinghouse for international financial transactions known as SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The far-reaching step could inflict severe damage to Iran's economy by restricting the ability of banks and other institutions to move funds in or out of the country.

On Friday, SWIFT announced that it was "ready to implement sanctions against Iranian financial institutions" in response to new regulations the EU is set to enact.

Mark Dubowitz, an energy expert who has been advising Congress on sanctions, said the Obama administration has tried to add sanctions "in a measured way to assure international support and to avoid anything that would spook oil and financial markets."

But as concern over Iran's nuclear progress has intensified, members of Congress, with support from the French and British governments, "have really taken the lead in being aggressive," said Dubowitz, who is executive director of a pro-sanctions group called Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The latest sanctions clearly are having an effect. In recent weeks, the value of the Iranian currency has plummeted and prices for food and other consumer goods have soared, causing hardship for ordinary Iranians and putting political pressure on the regime.

A major crisis with Iran carries political risks for the White House. A war or other disruptive event that causes a sharp rise in oil prices could endanger the United States' fragile economic recovery and probably President Obama's chances for reelection.

As a result, the White House has had to scramble to keep up with the pace set by Congress and the Europeans. While critics have long accused Obama of "leading from behind" by empowering other countries to carry out America's bidding on world crises, the administration is now trying to avoid the appearance of "following from behind."

Administration officials insist they have been aggressive on Iran. They point to their latest action, an announcement Thursday that the U.S. will blacklist Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security for its support of Syrian President Bashar Assad's brutal repression of opposition protests, as well as for its backing of militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Don't you possess the ability to think critically or does your partisan nature just get in the way? How is it possible for republican lawmakers in the US to legislate a Belgium consortium subject to the laws of the European Union?

So even when presented with the truth from a highly leftist / liberal newspaper that the Obama administration was out to give Iran a break in 2012, while the repubs pushed for and managed to get the tougher bank swift sanctions which caused the Iranian economy to collapse, you mumble a totally irrelevant whiney partisan response.

Truth in the article? The truth was that SWIFT cut off Iran from their system pursuant to the laws of the EU and that was a successful technique in hampering Iran's ability to conduct it's business. The rest of the article reads like an opinion piece, it's partisan tripe.
My response wasn't partisan in any way. It was just a question, which you failed to answer.

Keep up will ya? LA Times is a leftist partisan paper, and a daily ass kisser of Obama. SWIFT sanctions were pushed by the republicans and strongly resisted by the Obama.

I'm keeping up just fine. You are a talking parrot, just repeating over and again what someone told you that fits your already conceived opinion. I don't give a shit which way the Times leans, I read an article and look for facts and information that supports the facts. The article you posted left me with unanswered questions that when asked you were unable to answer so I researched it myself. The republicans in the House were going to sanction SWIFT if the EU was unable to persuade them to drop Iranian banks from their system. I don't find fault in Obama for being hesitant on this issue, there are always unintended consequences, China and Russia are already working to free themselves of SWIFT so they can avoid being dealt with the same way. I did not find any evidence to support your assertion that Obama "strongly resisted", though I wish I had and he should have. I will leave off here where I began in this thread. Sanctions are an act of aggression and a collective punishment on an entire population and does not work as leverage to coerce a government. It is the people who suffer.

 

[sakinago]

Always the spoiler and fuckup, this is a president and a goofy administration with absolutely no clue as to what they're doing.

Here are the 2012 Swift banking sanctions, pushed by the republicans and resisted by Oblahblah, that finally caused some effect on the Iranian economy. In essence, the republicans brought Iran to the table and Obama blew it for America and the world. What a disaster this president is:

Obama administration takes back seat on Iran sanctions

Congress and Europe have been much more aggressive in punishing Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons program.

February 17, 2012|By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

Top administration officials late last year were strongly resistant when Congress slapped Iran's central bank with harsh sanctions. The European Union then went further, however, imposing an embargo to halt purchases of Iranian oil by European nations over the ensuing five months.

This month, Congress began crafting legislation that would essentially cut Iran out of the global clearinghouse for international financial transactions known as SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The far-reaching step could inflict severe damage to Iran's economy by restricting the ability of banks and other institutions to move funds in or out of the country.

On Friday, SWIFT announced that it was "ready to implement sanctions against Iranian financial institutions" in response to new regulations the EU is set to enact.

Mark Dubowitz, an energy expert who has been advising Congress on sanctions, said the Obama administration has tried to add sanctions "in a measured way to assure international support and to avoid anything that would spook oil and financial markets."

But as concern over Iran's nuclear progress has intensified, members of Congress, with support from the French and British governments, "have really taken the lead in being aggressive," said Dubowitz, who is executive director of a pro-sanctions group called Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The latest sanctions clearly are having an effect. In recent weeks, the value of the Iranian currency has plummeted and prices for food and other consumer goods have soared, causing hardship for ordinary Iranians and putting political pressure on the regime.

A major crisis with Iran carries political risks for the White House. A war or other disruptive event that causes a sharp rise in oil prices could endanger the United States' fragile economic recovery and probably President Obama's chances for reelection.

As a result, the White House has had to scramble to keep up with the pace set by Congress and the Europeans. While critics have long accused Obama of "leading from behind" by empowering other countries to carry out America's bidding on world crises, the administration is now trying to avoid the appearance of "following from behind."

Administration officials insist they have been aggressive on Iran. They point to their latest action, an announcement Thursday that the U.S. will blacklist Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security for its support of Syrian President Bashar Assad's brutal repression of opposition protests, as well as for its backing of militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Don't you possess the ability to think critically or does your partisan nature just get in the way? How is it possible for republican lawmakers in the US to legislate a Belgium consortium subject to the laws of the European Union?

So even when presented with the truth from a highly leftist / liberal newspaper that the Obama administration was out to give Iran a break in 2012, while the repubs pushed for and managed to get the tougher bank swift sanctions which caused the Iranian economy to collapse, you mumble a totally irrelevant whiney partisan response.

Truth in the article? The truth was that SWIFT cut off Iran from their system pursuant to the laws of the EU and that was a successful technique in hampering Iran's ability to conduct it's business. The rest of the article reads like an opinion piece, it's partisan tripe.
My response wasn't partisan in any way. It was just a question, which you failed to answer.

Keep up will ya? LA Times is a leftist partisan paper, and a daily ass kisser of Obama. SWIFT sanctions were pushed by the republicans and strongly resisted by the Obama.

I'm keeping up just fine. You are a talking parrot, just repeating over and again what someone told you that fits your already conceived opinion. I don't give a shit which way the Times leans, I read an article and look for facts and information that supports the facts. The article you posted left me with unanswered questions that when asked you were unable to answer so I researched it myself. The republicans in the House were going to sanction SWIFT if the EU was unable to persuade them to drop Iranian banks from their system. I don't find fault in Obama for being hesitant on this issue, there are always unintended consequences, China and Russia are already working to free themselves of SWIFT so they can avoid being dealt with the same way. I did not find any evidence to support your assertion that Obama "strongly resisted", though I wish I had and he should have. I will leave off here where I began in this thread. Sanctions are an act of aggression and a collective punishment on an entire population and does not work as leverage to coerce a government. It is the people who suffer.

No it's the people who suffer because of their irresponsible governments. Would you be against sanctions on rawanda during the genocide? Or if sanctions were used against hitler, would you be against them even if they hurt the general population? We played nice with hitler after he promised peace, how did that turn out?

 

[Roudy]

Always the spoiler and fuckup, this is a president and a goofy administration with absolutely no clue as to what they're doing.

Here are the 2012 Swift banking sanctions, pushed by the republicans and resisted by Oblahblah, that finally caused some effect on the Iranian economy. In essence, the republicans brought Iran to the table and Obama blew it for America and the world. What a disaster this president is:

Obama administration takes back seat on Iran sanctions

Congress and Europe have been much more aggressive in punishing Iran for its alleged nuclear weapons program.

February 17, 2012|By Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times

Top administration officials late last year were strongly resistant when Congress slapped Iran's central bank with harsh sanctions. The European Union then went further, however, imposing an embargo to halt purchases of Iranian oil by European nations over the ensuing five months.

This month, Congress began crafting legislation that would essentially cut Iran out of the global clearinghouse for international financial transactions known as SWIFT, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. The far-reaching step could inflict severe damage to Iran's economy by restricting the ability of banks and other institutions to move funds in or out of the country.

On Friday, SWIFT announced that it was "ready to implement sanctions against Iranian financial institutions" in response to new regulations the EU is set to enact.

Mark Dubowitz, an energy expert who has been advising Congress on sanctions, said the Obama administration has tried to add sanctions "in a measured way to assure international support and to avoid anything that would spook oil and financial markets."

But as concern over Iran's nuclear progress has intensified, members of Congress, with support from the French and British governments, "have really taken the lead in being aggressive," said Dubowitz, who is executive director of a pro-sanctions group called Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

The latest sanctions clearly are having an effect. In recent weeks, the value of the Iranian currency has plummeted and prices for food and other consumer goods have soared, causing hardship for ordinary Iranians and putting political pressure on the regime.

A major crisis with Iran carries political risks for the White House. A war or other disruptive event that causes a sharp rise in oil prices could endanger the United States' fragile economic recovery and probably President Obama's chances for reelection.

As a result, the White House has had to scramble to keep up with the pace set by Congress and the Europeans. While critics have long accused Obama of "leading from behind" by empowering other countries to carry out America's bidding on world crises, the administration is now trying to avoid the appearance of "following from behind."

Administration officials insist they have been aggressive on Iran. They point to their latest action, an announcement Thursday that the U.S. will blacklist Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security for its support of Syrian President Bashar Assad's brutal repression of opposition protests, as well as for its backing of militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Don't you possess the ability to think critically or does your partisan nature just get in the way? How is it possible for republican lawmakers in the US to legislate a Belgium consortium subject to the laws of the European Union?

So even when presented with the truth from a highly leftist / liberal newspaper that the Obama administration was out to give Iran a break in 2012, while the repubs pushed for and managed to get the tougher bank swift sanctions which caused the Iranian economy to collapse, you mumble a totally irrelevant whiney partisan response.

Truth in the article? The truth was that SWIFT cut off Iran from their system pursuant to the laws of the EU and that was a successful technique in hampering Iran's ability to conduct it's business. The rest of the article reads like an opinion piece, it's partisan tripe.
My response wasn't partisan in any way. It was just a question, which you failed to answer.

Keep up will ya? LA Times is a leftist partisan paper, and a daily ass kisser of Obama. SWIFT sanctions were pushed by the republicans and strongly resisted by the Obama.

I'm keeping up just fine. You are a talking parrot, just repeating over and again what someone told you that fits your already conceived opinion. I don't give a shit which way the Times leans, I read an article and look for facts and information that supports the facts. The article you posted left me with unanswered questions that when asked you were unable to answer so I researched it myself. The republicans in the House were going to sanction SWIFT if the EU was unable to persuade them to drop Iranian banks from their system. I don't find fault in Obama for being hesitant on this issue, there are always unintended consequences, China and Russia are already working to free themselves of SWIFT so they can avoid being dealt with the same way. I did not find any evidence to support your assertion that Obama "strongly resisted", though I wish I had and he should have. I will leave off here where I began in this thread. Sanctions are an act of aggression and a collective punishment on an entire population and does not work as leverage to coerce a government. It is the people who suffer.

It appears you aren't able to keep up. A leftist magazine was reporting the facts at the time in 2012. The repubs wanted to move ahead with the SWIFT sanctions and Obama didn't. As it turned out the swift sanctions were imposed and it caused the Iranian economy to collapse. The repubs were right, Obama was WRONG. So now, the con artist Obama steps in and takes credit for something he had absolutely nothing to do with, and totally destroys what the sanctions had achieved with this hoax of a deal.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I don't know how dumb republicans are but someone wasn't smart enough to realize that Iran wasn't going to negotiate with us whatsoever. I think that point was made quite often by some people and Obama proved it.

 

[MaryL]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

I love the way you framed that question, as if if there was't any other choice, period. Let me ask an off topic question: What the hell does Iran need with NUCLEAR MATERIAL with all the oil reserves they have? Other than to develop A BOMB? Why is this even an issue. With all atrocious behaviour Iran has committed, not seeing them as poor little victims, let alone their need for developing nuclear material. Gimme a break already.

 

[cnm]

Why is this even an issue. With all atrocious behaviour Iran has committed, not seeing them as poor little victims, let alone their need for developing nuclear material. Gimme a break already.

That's what I don't understand. I mean the US has hundreds of bombs, with behaviour as atrocious as using them.

You'd think the US wouldn't need nuclear material with all the oil reserves it has.

 

[Roudy]

Why is this even an issue. With all atrocious behaviour Iran has committed, not seeing them as poor little victims, let alone their need for developing nuclear material. Gimme a break already.

That's what I don't understand. I mean the US has hundreds of bombs, with behaviour as atrocious as using them.

You'd think the US wouldn't need nuclear material with all the oil reserves it has.

Mohammad seems to be suffering a lot in the USA, a country he hates. How about we raise money and ship you to the Muslim shithole of your choice?

 

[Roudy]

If someone else were in charge of the deal? You know the one sponsored by 7 countries? They like to think Obama is weak which is why concessions were made, but it's completely stupid to think Iran, under any circumstance, would do whatever the fuck repubs want. It's so nauseatingly ignorant.

Enough with the whole "well if St. Reagan was in charge of that deal derp, derp, derp!"

This deal is better than no deal. Get over it.

I love the way you framed that question, as if if there was't any other choice, period. Let me ask an off topic question: What the hell does Iran need with NUCLEAR MATERIAL with all the oil reserves they have? Other than to develop A BOMB? Why is this even an issue. With all atrocious behaviour Iran has committed, not seeing them as poor little victims, let alone their need for developing nuclear material. Gimme a break already.

Iran wants a bomb to threaten and blackmail its neighbors. Europe, Israel and then the U.S. are long term goals for them. It's primary goal now is to establish a Shiite caliphate over all Sunni lands, and we have seen that play out in many countries such as Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, etc. The Sunnis of course won't sit there waiting and will take the necessary preventive measures to stop Iran's expansion. Which is why the deal will guarantee that millions of Muslims will die in sectarian proxy wars throughout the region for the next two to three decades.

 

[auditor0007]

Cons think we can get a better deal, but it's not likely. More likely is the fact that Iran would continue enrichment so they could make plenty of nukes. This would force us and/or Israel to start a war. Most likely the Russians would step in and then we are on the verge of WWIII. With this deal, we still have a military option, if the Iranians do not abide by their agreement. I'm to the point that I believe cons just want more wars, or they are too dumb to understand that the world is changing. We still have the greatest military, but the rest of the world isn't so thrilled about our using it to force our wishes on the rest of them, and that includes our so called allies.

You idiot.

The idiot is the one who believes we should just start another war with them if they do not abide by our wishes. Of course, we are the ones with all the nukes threatening them if they do not conform to our wishes. The US is like the big bully at school who decides who can do what, and who can't. And you don't understand why so many countries can't stand the US. Sure, our intentions are good, but those who are bullied don't see it that way. You obviously don't have much knowledge of our history with Iran. Maybe you should research it a little.

 

[MaryL]

Why is this even an issue. With all atrocious behaviour Iran has committed, not seeing them as poor little victims, let alone their need for developing nuclear material. Gimme a break already.

That's what I don't understand. I mean the US has hundreds of bombs, with behaviour as atrocious as using them.

You'd think the US wouldn't need nuclear material with all the oil reserves it has.

Mohammad seems to be suffering a lot in the USA, a country he hates. How about we raise money and ship you to the Muslim shithole of your choice?

We both know Americans are guaranteed freedom of religion. You seem to be accusing me personally of pandering to them . Speaking PERSONALLY, We need to find the fine line between a religion and a religious based terrorist group. Maybe there won't be one, so perhaps we need to take a profound look at the First Amendment, along with most of the other amendments and make them more era appropriate.

 

[Roudy]

Why is this even an issue. With all atrocious behaviour Iran has committed, not seeing them as poor little victims, let alone their need for developing nuclear material. Gimme a break already.

That's what I don't understand. I mean the US has hundreds of bombs, with behaviour as atrocious as using them.

You'd think the US wouldn't need nuclear material with all the oil reserves it has.

Mohammad seems to be suffering a lot in the USA, a country he hates. How about we raise money and ship you to the Muslim shithole of your choice?

We both know Americans are guaranteed freedom of religion. You seem to be accusing me personally of pandering to them . Speaking PERSONALLY, We need to find the fine line between a religion and a religious based terrorist group. Maybe there won't be one, so perhaps we need to take a profound look at the First Amendment, along with most of the other amendments and make them more era appropriate.

Hi Mary, I wasn't talking to you, it was that lowlife scum bag Jew hating anti American piece of Shiite: CNM.