It Ain't A Joke

[PoliticalChic]

The question that no Obama supporter can answer:


What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[ESay]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

Didn't you know that Iran has paid 20-30% of North Korea's GDP for years, to be their nuclear lab?????


Did you know that the 'agreement' that guarantees nukes to Iran has no clause preventing them developing intercontinental ballistic missiles?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

"What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?"

The obvious one that has been proven to work:




The greatest President in the last 100 years used economic pressure to bring the only other superpower to its knees.
....Obama could have done what Reagan did, had he actually intended to end Iran's support for terror and Islamofascism and its desire for nuclear weapons:

"...the president [Reagan] signed National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 32, which....called for aid to Solidarity, counter-propaganda in Poland, tightening of sanctions on the Soviet Union, and covert activities to achieve these objectives.
Reagan sent out 328 such 'Top Secret' directives to the diplomatic, military, and intelligence agencies during his presidency."
The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World," p. , p.185



Reagan .... thought the aim of American foreign policy should be not to get along with the Communist powers but to hasten their end.


Obama's aim was always to nuclear arm the worst of western civilization's enemies.
And he did.




Sanctons:

"The Soviets could no longer meet US economic and strategic competition. They therefore had to meet Reagan's terms. Gorbachev announced his acceptance of the 'zero-zero option' on INF missiles [ the withdrawal of all Soviet and United Statesintermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe. This term was subsequently expanded to describe the vision of eliminating all nuclear weapons everywhere] on July 22, 1987."
John O’Sullivan, The President, the Pope, And the Prime Minister: Three Who Changed the World, p. 289



Sanctions work.....that's why Obama dropped them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

"The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon."

You can't be this dense......


If what you say is true......why would the mullahs have signed the agreement???????????

 

[PoliticalChic]

And, thanks again for this exchange......it proves the transparency of the Obama drive to give nuclear weapons to the savages, and how easily the argument would have been destroyed if we had a free and independent press.


The only intelligent conclusion is that Obama, either out of stupidity, or a desire to make a Muslim superpower, always wanted to make certain that the mullahs had nuclear weapons.

 

[ESay]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

"The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon."

You can't be this dense......


If what you say is true......why would the mullahs have signed the agreement???????????

The mullahs wanted economic benefits. Also, at that time the upper hand in Iran had so-called reformators.

How often do you read news from Iran? Answer this question please so I can understand whether it is pointful to continue our discussion.

About the breakway time, this was written in various sources. Use Google to find it out. Moreover, it was said that Iran was already capable to produce so-called dirty bomb at the time.

And dude, if you want to use epithets then start a discussion with somebody else. I also dont have much regard for your way of thinking but I keep myself in hand.

 

[ESay]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

"The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon."

You can't be this dense......


If what you say is true......why would the mullahs have signed the agreement???????????

The mullahs wanted economic benefits. Also, at that time the upper hand in Iran had so-called reformators.

How often do you read news from Iran? Answer this question please so I can understand whether it is pointful to continue our discussion.

About the breakway time, this was written in various sources. Use Google to find it out. Moreover, it was said that Iran was already capable to produce so-called dirty bomb at the time.

And dude, if you want to use epithets then start a discussion with somebody else. I also dont have much regard for your way of thinking but I keep myself in hand.

"....at that time the upper hand in Iran had so-called reformators (sic)."

Nonsense.

A theocracy ruled by a fundamentalist mullah.


And, I'm no 'dude.' I'm a scholar, and I'm never wrong.

Cut to the chase:

What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'.

"I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'."

Astounding how consistently wrong you are.


"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'




Now....answer the question:
What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

 

[ESay]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'.

"I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'."

Astounding how consistently wrong you are.


"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'




Now....answer the question:
What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

I am not going to answer you question until you answer mine.
Considering that the breakway time was three month in that time, what option was viable to stop Iranian program except of signing the deal?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon. Okay, you dont support it. What was your option to stop Iran of obtaining that?

What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'.

"I dont consider Iran 'the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism'."

Astounding how consistently wrong you are.


"US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'
Annual State Department report admonishes Tehran for assisting 'terrorists' as attacks down for second year in a row."
US: Iran still the 'leading state sponsor of terror'




Now....answer the question:
What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

I am not going to answer you question until you answer mine.
Considering that the breakway time was three month in that time, what option was viable to stop Iranian program except of signing the deal?

"I am not going to answer you question until you answer mine."



1. I answered it previously:
"The breakaway time was less than three month at that time. If not the agreement Iran would already have the nuclear weapon."

You can't be this dense......


If what you say is true......why would the mullahs have signed the agreement???????????
There was no such route for Iran....not without Obama, their greatest funder.



2. The truth is, you can't answer this:

What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?

There is no benefit.....only a threat to civilization.


It is the simple reason that Hussein Obama is the most destructive man Democrats have foisted on the nation and the world.

 

[ESay]

I see. What I can add is that you having such a country as Saudi Arabia as an ally have no moral right of accusing someone in terrorism. But it seems that hipocrisy has become the cornerstone of the US.

Good luck.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I see. What I can add is that you having such a country as Saudi Arabia as an ally have no moral right of accusing someone in terrorism. But it seems that hipocrisy has become the cornerstone of the US.

Good luck.

Funny how the tern 'hypocrisy' (that's how to spell it) doesn't stick in your throat.

You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.


In another thread, I wrote

Should I prove what I've said about Democrats/Liberals/government school grads being unable to explain or defend policies they vote to support?
Now, see if the following isn’t a valid description of the ‘reliable Democrat voter,’ who is unable to explain, or defend, the doctrines they vote for….e.g.:

What benefit did America, or the world, accrue by guaranteeing nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?


I didn't go far enough in revealing what passes for thinking among Democrats/Liberals....the ability look at facts that refute their worldview,...and go right on supporting the errors, was on display in a thread where an Obama supporter tried to support the Iran deal...


When his post was eviscerated, point by point, my quoting NPR and even the NYTimes to prove how wrong he is.....our Obamunist wrote:

"But I still stand with my points and think they are true. And I hope that other countries which signed the agreement will find a way to evade American sanctions and develop cooperation with Iran."
It Ain't A Joke



Truly astounding ability to ignore truth and facts, and skip merrily along.
Defeating The Impulse…




You've verified what I posted about the intellectually dishonest Obama supporter.

 

[ESay]

You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.

Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?

Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.

Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?

Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.

This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.

If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.

Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I kinda take it you do not understand kinda like?

We kinda take it you lied

 

[ESay]

You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.

Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?

Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.

This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.

If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.

Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.

Your claim is based on what? You have some link? Do you know to what level some uranium was enriched?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You claimed you'd answer the question...but, you didn't.

Because you didnt answer mine. I am sure you didnt google about the breakway time, did you?

Btw, do you thoroughly read your link from NPR? There is written about the restrictions and about the breakway time.

This is the third time: there was no such ability to nuclearize in three months.

If there was, they wouldn't have needed Obama and his deal and his $150 billion.

Just one more of the lies you're determined to believe.

Your claim is based on what? You have some link? Do you know to what level some uranium was enriched?

Everything you believe is a lie.....as I showed.

If the savages could have accomplished weapon-nuclearization without Obama's help.....they would have.


October 7 2008, in the second presidential debate: "We cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. It would be a game-changer in the region. Not only would it threaten Israel, our strongest ally in the region and one of our strongest allies in the world, but it would also create a possibility of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. And so it's unacceptable. And I will do everything that's required to prevent it. And we will never take military options off the table,"

Then, he guaranteed them nuclear weapons on his way out the door.


The only possible conclusion is, either, you are lying about believing the Obama stories.....or you are simply gullible, a necessity for Democrat voters.