"The Smartest Guy In The Room ..."

[Derideo_Te]

He stated that Iran had continued to fund terrorism irrespective of financial conditions and that lifting sanctions won't make any difference at all.

Wrong. Try reading the article and get back to me.

Which part of this statement by Obama in the linked OP article do you need an adult to explain to you?

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”​

Obama would like us to believe his give away deal with Iran will have no influence on their support of terrorism but you can't suddenly free up $150 billion dollars to them and end missile and arms sanctions and NOT make their
sponsorship of terrorism even more problematic.

It's like saying your teenager was sneaking out and drinking booze before
so your providing him now with your car and ATM card won't matter any.
It's laughable.

Your fallacious assumption that Iran is going to spend $150 billion on terrorism is what is laughable.

 

[Derideo_Te]

He stated that Iran had continued to fund terrorism irrespective of financial conditions and that lifting sanctions won't make any difference at all.

Wrong. Try reading the article and get back to me.

Which part of this statement by Obama in the linked OP article do you need an adult to explain to you?

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”​

There is a difference between - as you put it - "He stated that Iran had continued to fund terrorism irrespective of financial conditions and that lifting sanctions won't make any difference at all." and "the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much".

To provide ANY advantage to the world's most active terror regime is not in America's interest, and certainly when he negotiated nothing in return.

Your fallacious assumption that nothing has been negotiated in return is based on what exactly?

Your disinformation from zero credibility sites like Breitbart?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

He stated that Iran had continued to fund terrorism irrespective of financial conditions and that lifting sanctions won't make any difference at all.

Wrong. Try reading the article and get back to me.

Which part of this statement by Obama in the linked OP article do you need an adult to explain to you?

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”​

Obama would like us to believe his give away deal with Iran will have no influence on their support of terrorism but you can't suddenly free up $150 billion dollars to them and end missile and arms sanctions and NOT make their
sponsorship of terrorism even more problematic.

It's like saying your teenager was sneaking out and drinking booze before
so your providing him now with your car and ATM card won't matter any.
It's laughable.

Your fallacious assumption that Iran is going to spend $150 billion on terrorism is what is laughable.

They are laughing too.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

He stated that Iran had continued to fund terrorism irrespective of financial conditions and that lifting sanctions won't make any difference at all.

Wrong. Try reading the article and get back to me.

Which part of this statement by Obama in the linked OP article do you need an adult to explain to you?

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”​

Obama would like us to believe his give away deal with Iran will have no influence on their support of terrorism but you can't suddenly free up $150 billion dollars to them and end missile and arms sanctions and NOT make their
sponsorship of terrorism even more problematic.

It's like saying your teenager was sneaking out and drinking booze before
so your providing him now with your car and ATM card won't matter any.
It's laughable.

Your fallacious assumption that Iran is going to spend $150 billion on terrorism is what is laughable.

That's your presumption. Not my assumption!
It's foolish to believe Iran would take their windfall and spend it all propping up their terrorist clients, which is why I never said such a thing.

 

[Derideo_Te]

He stated that Iran had continued to fund terrorism irrespective of financial conditions and that lifting sanctions won't make any difference at all.

Wrong. Try reading the article and get back to me.

Which part of this statement by Obama in the linked OP article do you need an adult to explain to you?

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”​

Obama would like us to believe his give away deal with Iran will have no influence on their support of terrorism but you can't suddenly free up $150 billion dollars to them and end missile and arms sanctions and NOT make their
sponsorship of terrorism even more problematic.

It's like saying your teenager was sneaking out and drinking booze before
so your providing him now with your car and ATM card won't matter any.
It's laughable.

Your fallacious assumption that Iran is going to spend $150 billion on terrorism is what is laughable.

That's your presumption. Not my assumption!
It's foolish to believe Iran would take their windfall and spend it all propping up their terrorist clients, which is why I never said such a thing.

What you posted is your problem, not mine.

The OP is wrong about Obama and your attempts to defend the OP are not doing your credibility any favors.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

He stated that Iran had continued to fund terrorism irrespective of financial conditions and that lifting sanctions won't make any difference at all.

Wrong. Try reading the article and get back to me.

Which part of this statement by Obama in the linked OP article do you need an adult to explain to you?

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”​

Obama would like us to believe his give away deal with Iran will have no influence on their support of terrorism but you can't suddenly free up $150 billion dollars to them and end missile and arms sanctions and NOT make their
sponsorship of terrorism even more problematic.

It's like saying your teenager was sneaking out and drinking booze before
so your providing him now with your car and ATM card won't matter any.
It's laughable.

Your fallacious assumption that Iran is going to spend $150 billion on terrorism is what is laughable.

They are laughing too.

As they should. They got everything they wanted and more. All they gave away was time. Period!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Wrong. Try reading the article and get back to me.

Which part of this statement by Obama in the linked OP article do you need an adult to explain to you?

In attempting to defend the Iran deal, Obama told the BBC Friday that terror groups already have access to advanced weaponry, and that the nuclear accord would not change that dynamic too much. “Hezbollah for example, threatening to fire missiles at Israel, has no shortage of resources,” he said. “We have seen that even in times of distress, Iran is able to allocate resources in what it sees as its strategic priority.”​

Obama would like us to believe his give away deal with Iran will have no influence on their support of terrorism but you can't suddenly free up $150 billion dollars to them and end missile and arms sanctions and NOT make their
sponsorship of terrorism even more problematic.

It's like saying your teenager was sneaking out and drinking booze before
so your providing him now with your car and ATM card won't matter any.
It's laughable.

Your fallacious assumption that Iran is going to spend $150 billion on terrorism is what is laughable.

That's your presumption. Not my assumption!
It's foolish to believe Iran would take their windfall and spend it all propping up their terrorist clients, which is why I never said such a thing.

What you posted is your problem, not mine.

The OP is wrong about Obama and your attempts to defend the OP are not doing your credibility any favors.

Since when is being absolutely right a "problem"?
An impartial look at what Iran got vs. what they gave up absolutely proves Obama gave the house away in order to say he made a deal with Iran.

The theocratic crazies will have their bomb in a decade's time thanks in large part to one man's hubris and lack of backbone.

 

[Bobby1250]

... is arguably working for the other side, against American interests.

Obama Admits Lifting Sanctions Against Iran Will Fund Terror

Gosh! And to think Netanyahu, opposes the Iran deal as being dangerous...

For years we have been warned that Iranian nukes would be a threat to Israel’s very existence. But now that there’s a deal on the nukes, the mask has slipped a little. The problem isn’t really Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The real problem is that Iran is challenging Israel in the region.

Netanyahu gave a statement yesterday where he said what Israel really wants is regime change, because of Iran’s “aggressive behavior.”...

“Aggressive behavior” doesn’t mean a threat to Israel’s very existence. It’s the fact that Iran opposes the Israeli occupation of Palestine and has proxies that create enormous resistance, some of it violent, to that military occupation. Netanyahu focused in his speech on Hezbollah.

Netanyahu doesn’t have all that much to worry about, though. Israel’s allies in the United States seem to understand that the Iran deal is inevitable, and they’re working now to try to limit the damage to Israel’s regional power.

In fact, President Obama is selling the deal by saying it is only about Iran’s nukes. Speaking to Tom Friedman of the New York Times, Obama pointed out that Netanyahu once claimed to care about nukes:

Quote
We are not measuring this deal by whether it is changing the regime inside of Iran,” said the president. “We’re not measuring this deal by whether we are solving every problem that can be traced back to Iran, whether we are eliminating all their nefarious activities around the globe. We are measuring this deal — and that was the original premise of this conversation, including by Prime Minister Netanyahu — Iran could not get a nuclear weapon. That was always the discussion.


Obama is signalling to Senate Democrats like Chuck Schumer that he will continue to support the rightwing Israel lobby agenda: No pressure on the occupation. This means that when the French resolution comes up in the U.N. to create a Palestinian state this fall, Obama will come out against it, as part of his political bargaining to get support for the Iran deal.

Hillary Clinton is sending the same signal. Her support for the Iran deal is only to the extent that it is focused on Iran’s nuclear program. Iran’s backing of Israel’s enemies remains her main concern — the fight against “Iran’s other bad actions” must continue, she says. Daily Beast:

Quote
I think this is an important step that puts a lid on Iran’s nuclear programs,” she concluded, “and it will enable us to turn our attention, as it must, to doing what we can with other partners in the region and beyond to try to prevent and contain Iran’s other bad actions.

Clinton has already indicated to her rich friends in the lobby that she is going to oppose any effort to condemn Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

That is one of the big payoffs of the Iran deal for those of us in the growing movement for justice in Israel/Palestine. It will remove a huge distraction that Israel has used for years to justify the occupation: the “existential threat” of Iran.

Now more and more people will be able to look at the real problem, the fact that half the people Israel rules over have second class citizenship or no rights at all, because they’re not Jewish, and this situation has become a giant grievance across the Arab and Muslim world.

That is something Americans need to talk about. The Iran deal makes that conversation more likely.

Israel’s real fear about the Iran deal: It puts pressure on the occupation

 

[Derideo_Te]

Since when is being absolutely right a "problem"?

Onus is on you to prove your claim.

Simply making statements that you are "absolutely right" when you can't provide factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources merely destroys your own credibility.

And yes, that is your problem, not mine.

 

[Derideo_Te]

That is one of the big payoffs of the Iran deal for those of us in the growing movement for justice in Israel/Palestine. It will remove a huge distraction that Israel has used for years to justify the occupation: the “existential threat” of Iran. Now more and more people will be able to look at the real problem, the fact that half the people Israel rules over have second class citizenship or no rights at all, because they’re not Jewish, and this situation has become a giant grievance across the Arab and Muslim world. That is something Americans need to talk about. The Iran deal makes that conversation more likely.

Personally I have been greatly disappointed in the way that Israel has been handling their relations with the Palestinians. In effect they introduced a regime that has many of the worst aspects of Apartheid.

Yes, that does need to be addressed and the sooner the better. An integrated society with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side would be the best defense against an Iranian nuclear attack.

I find it strange that no one has figured this out yet.

 

[Bobby1250]

That is one of the big payoffs of the Iran deal for those of us in the growing movement for justice in Israel/Palestine. It will remove a huge distraction that Israel has used for years to justify the occupation: the “existential threat” of Iran. Now more and more people will be able to look at the real problem, the fact that half the people Israel rules over have second class citizenship or no rights at all, because they’re not Jewish, and this situation has become a giant grievance across the Arab and Muslim world. That is something Americans need to talk about. The Iran deal makes that conversation more likely.

Personally I have been greatly disappointed in the way that Israel has been handling their relations with the Palestinians. In effect they introduced a regime that has many of the worst aspects of Apartheid.

Yes, that does need to be addressed and the sooner the better. An integrated society with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side would be the best defense against an Iranian nuclear attack.

I find it strange that no one has figured this out yet.

There is never going to be an Iranian nuclear attack. Under the terms of the Iran deal the Iranians can't even enrich enough uranium to manufacture medical isotopes for cancer research and barely have enough centrifuges for electricity in Iran...let alone the ability to sell electricity outside Iran.

Israel's biggest fear is that Iran would become a viable competitor in the electricity and cancer research markets in the ME. With Israel it was NEVER about nukes. With Israel it is ALWAYS about shekels.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Since when is being absolutely right a "problem"?

View attachment 45649

Onus is on you to prove your claim.

Simply making statements that you are "absolutely right" when you can't provide factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources merely destroys your own credibility.

And yes, that is your problem, not mine.

LOL....this is pretty ironic considering you haven't given one single factual reason to support the claim that I am just "wrong". Hey, Pot! Meet Mr. Kettle.
They are one in the same.
Let me repeat that one has only to look at what we've given up (economic, arms and missile sanctions, the right to block Iranian nuclear development, the right to unfettered inspection, the right to have any say at all over Iran's bomb building after a ten year window, the right to take back the American citizens Iran is holding, the right to extract concessions of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, etc. ect.) versus what we get in return (Iran pledges not to build their bomb).

If you think Iran is the last nation on earth that should get a nuclear bomb
(now that N Korea got their bomb when the Clinton administration made a very similar deal, to the Iran model, with crazy Kim Jong il) there is no doubt we made a historically bad and dangerous deal with theocratic crazies that have demonstrated over and over again they cannot be trusted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Since when is being absolutely right a "problem"?

View attachment 45649

Onus is on you to prove your claim.

Simply making statements that you are "absolutely right" when you can't provide factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources merely destroys your own credibility.

And yes, that is your problem, not mine.

LOL....this is pretty ironic considering you haven't given one single factual reason to support the claim that I am just "wrong". Hey, Pot! Meet Mr. Kettle.
They are one in the same.
Let me repeat that one has only to look at what we've given up (economic, arms and missile sanctions, the right to block Iranian nuclear development, the right to unfettered inspection, the right to have any say at all over Iran's bomb building after a ten year window, the right to take back the American citizens Iran is holding, the right to extract concessions of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, etc. ect.) versus what we get in return (Iran pledges not to build their bomb).

If you think Iran is the last nation on earth that should get a nuclear bomb
(now that N Koran got their bomb when the Clinton administration made a very similar deal with them) there is no doubt we made a historically bad and dangerous deal with theocratic crazies that have demonstrated over and over again they cannot be trusted.

Thank you for proving that you don't have any factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources for what you believe about the Iran nuke deal.

And with that you have nullified your own credibility. Next time try providing links instead.

Have a nice day.

 

[PredFan]

Oops, Nevermind, I thought the OP was calling me out.

Carry on.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Since when is being absolutely right a "problem"?

View attachment 45649

Onus is on you to prove your claim.

Simply making statements that you are "absolutely right" when you can't provide factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources merely destroys your own credibility.

And yes, that is your problem, not mine.

LOL....this is pretty ironic considering you haven't given one single factual reason to support the claim that I am just "wrong". Hey, Pot! Meet Mr. Kettle.
They are one in the same.
Let me repeat that one has only to look at what we've given up (economic, arms and missile sanctions, the right to block Iranian nuclear development, the right to unfettered inspection, the right to have any say at all over Iran's bomb building after a ten year window, the right to take back the American citizens Iran is holding, the right to extract concessions of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, etc. ect.) versus what we get in return (Iran pledges not to build their bomb).

If you think Iran is the last nation on earth that should get a nuclear bomb
(now that N Koran got their bomb when the Clinton administration made a very similar deal with them) there is no doubt we made a historically bad and dangerous deal with theocratic crazies that have demonstrated over and over again they cannot be trusted.

Thank you for proving that you don't have any factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources for what you believe about the Iran nuke deal.

And with that you have nullified your own credibility. Next time try providing links instead.

Have a nice day.

Please save your supply of bull shit for someone else. I listed a number of indisputable aspects of our deal with Iran (which you haven't countered) and you and I both know there is no link I could possibly provide to you that's critical of the deal that you would consider "non partisan".
It just can't be done.
I will have a nice day knowing I've put a b.s. artist in his place.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Since when is being absolutely right a "problem"?

View attachment 45649

Onus is on you to prove your claim.

Simply making statements that you are "absolutely right" when you can't provide factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources merely destroys your own credibility.

And yes, that is your problem, not mine.

LOL....this is pretty ironic considering you haven't given one single factual reason to support the claim that I am just "wrong". Hey, Pot! Meet Mr. Kettle.
They are one in the same.
Let me repeat that one has only to look at what we've given up (economic, arms and missile sanctions, the right to block Iranian nuclear development, the right to unfettered inspection, the right to have any say at all over Iran's bomb building after a ten year window, the right to take back the American citizens Iran is holding, the right to extract concessions of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, etc. ect.) versus what we get in return (Iran pledges not to build their bomb).

If you think Iran is the last nation on earth that should get a nuclear bomb
(now that N Koran got their bomb when the Clinton administration made a very similar deal with them) there is no doubt we made a historically bad and dangerous deal with theocratic crazies that have demonstrated over and over again they cannot be trusted.

Thank you for proving that you don't have any factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources for what you believe about the Iran nuke deal.

And with that you have nullified your own credibility. Next time try providing links instead.

Have a nice day.

Please save your supply of bull shit for someone else. I listed a number of indisputable aspects of our deal with Iran (which you haven't countered) and you and I both know there is no link I could possibly provide to you that's critical of the deal that you would consider "non partisan".
It just can't be done.
I will have a nice day knowing I've put a b.s. artist in his place.

Ironic coming from someone who posted this BS!

"Let me repeat that one has only to look at what we've given up (economic, arms and missile sanctions, the right to block Iranian nuclear development, "
​

The West can't give up "the right to block Iranian nuclear development" when it never had that right in the first place.

Obviously your sources are the usual extemist rightwing disinformation sites since you are gullible enough to swallow that kind of codswallop.

So you did a great job on destroying your own credibility, noob.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Since when is being absolutely right a "problem"?

View attachment 45649

Onus is on you to prove your claim.

Simply making statements that you are "absolutely right" when you can't provide factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources merely destroys your own credibility.

And yes, that is your problem, not mine.

LOL....this is pretty ironic considering you haven't given one single factual reason to support the claim that I am just "wrong". Hey, Pot! Meet Mr. Kettle.
They are one in the same.
Let me repeat that one has only to look at what we've given up (economic, arms and missile sanctions, the right to block Iranian nuclear development, the right to unfettered inspection, the right to have any say at all over Iran's bomb building after a ten year window, the right to take back the American citizens Iran is holding, the right to extract concessions of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, etc. ect.) versus what we get in return (Iran pledges not to build their bomb).

If you think Iran is the last nation on earth that should get a nuclear bomb
(now that N Koran got their bomb when the Clinton administration made a very similar deal with them) there is no doubt we made a historically bad and dangerous deal with theocratic crazies that have demonstrated over and over again they cannot be trusted.

Thank you for proving that you don't have any factual substantiation from credible nonpartisan sources for what you believe about the Iran nuke deal.

And with that you have nullified your own credibility. Next time try providing links instead.

Have a nice day.

Please save your supply of bull shit for someone else. I listed a number of indisputable aspects of our deal with Iran (which you haven't countered) and you and I both know there is no link I could possibly provide to you that's critical of the deal that you would consider "non partisan".
It just can't be done.
I will have a nice day knowing I've put a b.s. artist in his place.

Ironic coming from someone who posted this BS!

"Let me repeat that one has only to look at what we've given up (economic, arms and missile sanctions, the right to block Iranian nuclear development, "
​

The West can't give up "the right to block Iranian nuclear development" when it never had that right in the first place.

Tell that to the UN. Sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
International sanctions are a commonly employed and accepted alternative to war when a nation flaunts the rules, codes and practices of civilized behavior.
Or perhaps you prefer war.

Obviously your sources are the usual extemist rightwing disinformation sites since you are gullible enough to swallow that kind of codswallop.

So you did a great job on destroying your own credibility, noob.

So you seem to be saying UN sanctions are not only illegal and
illegitimate but part of a "right wing" extremist plot?
I want to make sure you get all the credit you have coming to you for such enlightenment.