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

[MACAULAY]

Obama's whole scheme is to get a 10 year deal that Iran won't have nukes; hope they will honor it until he is out of office for awhile---then blame whoever is president then for letting Iran get nukes.

It his stupidity and cowardice that will have done it....but the looney-tune press will likely back him up because if you criticise him you catch the race card.

This guy is a confirmed narcissist and asshole. Its all about his Legacy now. To hell anything else.

 

[Rozman]

Maybe after Iran sets off a few of them?

 

[mikegriffith1]

If you still wonder how so many British politicians and so many of the citizens who voted for them could have been so incredibly blind to the clear, obvious danger posed by Hitler, and how they could have dismissed the cogent, compelling warnings issued by Churchill and others, just read the liberal replies in this thread.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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!

He has no logic.

 

[AmericanFirst]

If you still wonder how so many British politicians and so many of the citizens who voted for them could have been so incredibly blind to the clear, obvious danger posed by Hitler, and how they could have dismissed the cogent, compelling warnings issued by Churchill and others, just read the liberal replies in this thread.

Yep

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Did you feel the same when Nixon went to China?

 

[SwimExpert]

I worry about Iran having nukes about as much as I worry about North Korea having nukes. Maybe Israel is worried. That's Israel's problem.

 

[Lakhota]

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

The sooner Iran gets nukes the better. I'm tired of hearing all the chickenshit rhetoric from all sides. Let's get it on.

 

[bluedog1]

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

The sooner Iran gets nukes the better. I'm tired of hearing all the chickenshit rhetoric from all sides. Let's get it on.

Seriously? The less nations that have nukes the better, especially those run by religious fanatics.

 

[Lakhota]

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

The sooner Iran gets nukes the better. I'm tired of hearing all the chickenshit rhetoric from all sides. Let's get it on.

Seriously? The less nations that have nukes the better, especially those run by religious fanatics.

I agree - but it's far too late for that.

 

[Annie]

If you still wonder how so many British politicians and so many of the citizens who voted for them could have been so incredibly blind to the clear, obvious danger posed by Hitler, and how they could have dismissed the cogent, compelling warnings issued by Churchill and others, just read the liberal replies in this thread.

Yeah, I'm always taken aback by the same folks that think guns should be confiscated are the same folks who somehow think 'everyone should have nukes.'

 

[HenryBHough]

Problem with the premise of the original post in this thread is the use of the word "if".

There is no "if" about it. Iran will have nukes before Obama is out of office if He has to carry them on His back to the ayatollahs.

 

[Skylar]

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.

A horrendous mistake into comparison to what? Bombing Iran?

 

[Skylar]

Problem with the premise of the original post in this thread is the use of the word "if".

There is no "if" about it. Iran will have nukes before Obama is out of office if He has to carry them on His back to the ayatollahs.

Have any of your batshit crazy predictions ever come true?

 

[Skylar]

Obama's whole scheme is to get a 10 year deal that Iran won't have nukes; hope they will honor it until he is out of office for awhile---then blame whoever is president then for letting Iran get nukes.

It his stupidity and cowardice that will have done it....but the looney-tune press will likely back him up because if you criticise him you catch the race card.

This guy is a confirmed narcissist and asshole. Its all about his Legacy now. To hell anything else.

And by 'confirmed narcissist', you mean you typed it. So its confirmed?

Here's the thing, guys......we're not overwhelmed with spectacular options here. Lets say we tell the Iranians to go **** themselves and impose more sanctions. What would prevent them from building a nuke? What would be the incentive?

If anyone is serious about discussing this issue, I'm down. But we've been doing this dance with the Iranians for 10 years. And no one has made more headway with them than Obama. With the key aspect of this to remember being that we can't actually force Iran to do shit without invading them.

 

[DarkFury]

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.

Iran will not only have but USE nukes BEFORE liberals ever admit to ANY mistake.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So war. That's your first, last and only suggestion.

Shocker.

 

[mikegriffith1]

An early indication that Obama was not really serious about confronting Iran, much less about stopping Iran from getting nukes, was his weak, timid support of the opposition protests in Iran in 2009 and his largely muted response to the regime’s brutal suppression of those protests. Obama’s refusal to boldly and vocally support the Iranian opposition in 2009 contrasts sharply with his strong support for the Muslim Brotherhood-led opposition against our ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. The Israelis warned Obama that the Egyptian opposition was radical and Jihadist, but Obama, as usual, wouldn’t listen.

And when Iran brutally suppressed the Green Revolution protests in Iran in 2009, he tried to cover his tracks by falsely claiming that the Iranian opposition never asked for American aid. We now know that that was a lie. Luckily, someone leaked the memo that Green Revolution leaders sent to the Obama administration, and it proves that the Iranian opposition most certainly did ask for American assistance.

Obama also claimed that the Iranian opposition agreed that Iran should acquire nukes, but the memo refutes that lie as well. In fact, in the memo the opposition leaders warned that the regime would never give up its drive for nuclear weapons. They said that “with its apocalyptic constitution” the Iranian regime “will never give up the atomic bomb.”

Memo Shows Iranian Cries For Help During 2009 Green Revolution Went Unheeded - Investors.com

Israel Matzav Secret memo Obama ignored SOS from Iranian opposition

Secret memo suggests White House ignored SOS from Iranian opposition WashingtonExaminer.com

Again, when we look at Obama’s background, none of this should be surprising. It is beyond dispute that as a young adult he spent a fair amount of time associating with radical Muslims and ardent anti-Israeli activists, including Rasheed Khalidi, Ed Said, William Ayers, and Ali Abu Minah. We also know that, for some reason, a wealthy radical Muslim named Khalid Mansour recommended Obama for acceptance to Harvard and then gave Obama financial aid while he was there.

 

[MACAULAY]

Obama's whole scheme is to get a 10 year deal that Iran won't have nukes; hope they will honor it until he is out of office for awhile---then blame whoever is president then for letting Iran get nukes.

It his stupidity and cowardice that will have done it....but the looney-tune press will likely back him up because if you criticise him you catch the race card.

This guy is a confirmed narcissist and asshole. Its all about his Legacy now. To hell anything else.

And by 'confirmed narcissist', you mean you typed it. So its confirmed?

Here's the thing, guys......we're not overwhelmed with spectacular options here. Lets say we tell the Iranians to go **** themselves and impose more sanctions. What would prevent them from building a nuke? What would be the incentive?

If anyone is serious about discussing this issue, I'm down. But we've been doing this dance with the Iranians for 10 years. And no one has made more headway with them than Obama. With the key aspect of this to remember being that we can't actually force Iran to do shit without invading them.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Two other of these nutty dangerous lunatic muslim countries have tried to build nukes and Israel, with American support, has blown their facilities to smitherenes. And that's not counting Khadafi who had some form of WMD--until Reagan ran a Hellfire Missle through his tent...and he saw the light--gave up his Weapons voluntarily.

Difference now?

We have a fool and a ***** for a President who has strong-armed Israel from doing what we should have already done.

Neville Chamberlain is the only winner in Western Society from this unfolding disaster. In the future, when people talk about how a national leader got completely buffaloed by nuts, they'll talk about Obama...and leave Chamberlain alone.

 

[HenryBHough]

Have any of your batshit crazy predictions ever come true?

You do raise an interesting point. I did once predict that Americans might be stupid but not sufficientlyso as to elect an inexperienced community activist (read "rabble-rouser") to any office higher than State Senator.

In retrospect we can agree that was "batshit crazy". The ones to which I devoted a little more research, however, have universally proven correct.

Neville Chamberlain is the only winner in Western Society from this unfolding disaster. In the future, when people talk about how a national leader got completely buffaloed by nuts, they'll talk about Obama...and leave Chamberlain alone.

While Chamberlain has powerfully benefited I'd argue that he was not alone. Think of how wonderfully Jimmy Carter, once universally agreed to have been America's Worst President, has been rehabilitated.