iran, another stunning victory for Obama

[Remodeling Maidiac]

(CNN) -- Save the date: Iran has pledged to start eliminating some of its uranium stockpile on January 20, the White House said Sunday.

That gives an official start date for the six-month interim deal with Iran, which was first announced in November.

"As of that day, for the first time in almost a decade, Iran's nuclear program will not be able to advance, and parts of it will be rolled back, while we start negotiating a comprehensive agreement to address the international community's concerns about Iran's program," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement Sunday.

White House: Iran to start eliminating uranium stockpile January 20 - CNN.com

Hahahaha your source is completely trustworthy right?

 

[Redfish]

Explain to me and the naïve leftists a couple of things. What do you mean by "leftist"? What is "to take a strong position"? And what is your educational and experiential background which makes you an authority on anything?

Leftist in today's vernacular generally means one of more of the following: liberal, socialist, marxist, collectivist, communist, statist, atheist, progressive.

Take a strong position means having principles and having the will to stand for them and the strength to back them up if challenged.

What makes me an authority----experience, education (harvard MBA) world travel, international business, 60+ years of living, financial success, personal and family success, religion, compassion for the poor and sick, hard work.

Now, tell us why anyone should place any value on your opinions.

LOL, this is the internet and even if one element of what you claim is true, the fact remains your response is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking framed by historical events.

One example should suffice: You claim to, "Take a strong position means having principles and having the will to stand for them and the strength to back them up if challenged."

What is a "strong position"? Cowboy Diplomacy, sending the fleet and a couple of carrier groups and setting up a blockade, breaking off all back channel talks? How about some detail? Since you're so self assured and have that Harvard MBA, you must have thought about what you mean by "strong position" and how The President and Secretary of State should have acted.

Obama and Kerry have been prudent, strong, pragmatic and for the moment successful. No one is prescient, least of all you if the body of your work on this forum is any indication. The future is a mystery waiting to be unveiled, and the past is a good measure of what works and what does not. But is cannot predict future events. Some of what I learned at CAL taking courses within my double major - history and poli sci (which included course work in International Relations).

The one certainty is human nature, and the strategy of the Obama Administration suggests this variable is one they properly consider. I suggest you compare the following lesson learned with the former Bush Administration and that of President Obama's (if of course anything you claim is true and you're not the willfully ignorant parrot I believe):

From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam"

1.We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2.We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3.We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4.Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5.We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

6.We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

7.After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.

8.We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

9.We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

10.We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

11.Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Learning from your mistakes is another example of good leadership and intelligence. What did we learn from Viet Nam? Apparently nothing because we keep making the same stupid mistakes.

A "strong position" means standing for something and knowing the difference between right and wrong, friend and foe, smart and dumb, effective and ineffective, good use of military might and foolish waste of military might.

Reagan understood, no president since has.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Iran has always keep their word and done everything they agreed to do.

Whereas, Israel never misses an opportunity to lie, cheat, and deceive. ...

Aaand, you're talking out of your ass.

 

[Sallow]

Iran has always keep their word and done everything they agreed to do.

Whereas, Israel never misses an opportunity to lie, cheat, and deceive. ...

Aaand, you're talking out of your ass.

Really.

What promise did Iran break?

By the way, Israel has nukes and has been involved in attacking Iran and assassinating it's people.

 

[Sallow]

Leftist in today's vernacular generally means one of more of the following: liberal, socialist, marxist, collectivist, communist, statist, atheist, progressive.

Take a strong position means having principles and having the will to stand for them and the strength to back them up if challenged.

What makes me an authority----experience, education (harvard MBA) world travel, international business, 60+ years of living, financial success, personal and family success, religion, compassion for the poor and sick, hard work.

Now, tell us why anyone should place any value on your opinions.

LOL, this is the internet and even if one element of what you claim is true, the fact remains your response is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking framed by historical events.

One example should suffice: You claim to, "Take a strong position means having principles and having the will to stand for them and the strength to back them up if challenged."

What is a "strong position"? Cowboy Diplomacy, sending the fleet and a couple of carrier groups and setting up a blockade, breaking off all back channel talks? How about some detail? Since you're so self assured and have that Harvard MBA, you must have thought about what you mean by "strong position" and how The President and Secretary of State should have acted.

Obama and Kerry have been prudent, strong, pragmatic and for the moment successful. No one is prescient, least of all you if the body of your work on this forum is any indication. The future is a mystery waiting to be unveiled, and the past is a good measure of what works and what does not. But is cannot predict future events. Some of what I learned at CAL taking courses within my double major - history and poli sci (which included course work in International Relations).

The one certainty is human nature, and the strategy of the Obama Administration suggests this variable is one they properly consider. I suggest you compare the following lesson learned with the former Bush Administration and that of President Obama's (if of course anything you claim is true and you're not the willfully ignorant parrot I believe):

From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam"

1.We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2.We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3.We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4.Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5.We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

6.We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

7.After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.

8.We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

9.We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

10.We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

11.Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Learning from your mistakes is another example of good leadership and intelligence. What did we learn from Viet Nam? Apparently nothing because we keep making the same stupid mistakes.

A "strong position" means standing for something and knowing the difference between right and wrong, friend and foe, smart and dumb, effective and ineffective, good use of military might and foolish waste of military might.

Reagan understood, no president since has.

Reagan was a traitor.

 

[Edgetho]

The Iranians say things for the public consumption, as distributed by the DISGUSTING FILTH in the LSM, of stupid fucking dimocrap scum --

And they say quite another when they think nobody us listening --

BREAKING: Iran Says “We Will In No Way, Never, Dismantle” Our Nuclear Infrastructure…

Rubbing it in Obama’s face.

Via Free Beacon:

Iran vowed to maintain its nuclear infrastructure and threatened to boost its uranium enrichment capabilities just hours after announcing that it had agreed to a deal to halt some aspects of its contested nuclear program.

Iran and Western nations announced on Sunday that they had agreed to an interim deal to halt portions of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for some $7 billion in sanctions relief.

Secretary of State John Kerry celebrated the interim agreement, which will officially begin on January 20.

However, Iranian officials threatened to ramp up nuclear activities should they feel the West is violating the accord.

“We will in no way, never, dismantle our [nuclear] centrifuges,” Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told the country’s state-run television station on Sunday, according to New York Times reporter Thomas Erdbrink.

“Iranians endured sanctions for 10 years, resisted, so the world would respect our right to enrichment, this is now the case,” Araqchi was quoted as saying. “This game is played in our court. We cannot lose and return to enrichment as we wish.”

 

[TemplarKormac]

Iran has always keep their word and done everything they agreed to do.

Whereas, Israel never misses an opportunity to lie, cheat, and deceive. ...

Aaand, you're talking out of your ass.

Really.

What promise did Iran break?

By the way, Israel has nukes and has been involved in attacking Iran and assassinating it's people.

Didn't I just destroy that argument? First you said Israel attacked Iran during Operation Opera. The problem with that was that their target was in Iraq, dimwit. Funny how the Osirak reactor wasn't in Iran to begin with.

Second, Iran continues to enrich Uranium despite this tentative agreement. Do you really, seriously believe they'll give up that easily?

Israel is 50 times smaller than Iran, it has nukes for a reason. One nuke from Iran, and they're gone. Poof. Nuclear deterrence done right.

 

[Edgetho]

LOL, this is the internet and even if one element of what you claim is true, the fact remains your response is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking framed by historical events.

One example should suffice: You claim to, "Take a strong position means having principles and having the will to stand for them and the strength to back them up if challenged."

What is a "strong position"? Cowboy Diplomacy, sending the fleet and a couple of carrier groups and setting up a blockade, breaking off all back channel talks? How about some detail? Since you're so self assured and have that Harvard MBA, you must have thought about what you mean by "strong position" and how The President and Secretary of State should have acted.

Obama and Kerry have been prudent, strong, pragmatic and for the moment successful. No one is prescient, least of all you if the body of your work on this forum is any indication. The future is a mystery waiting to be unveiled, and the past is a good measure of what works and what does not. But is cannot predict future events. Some of what I learned at CAL taking courses within my double major - history and poli sci (which included course work in International Relations).

The one certainty is human nature, and the strategy of the Obama Administration suggests this variable is one they properly consider. I suggest you compare the following lesson learned with the former Bush Administration and that of President Obama's (if of course anything you claim is true and you're not the willfully ignorant parrot I believe):

From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam"

1.We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2.We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3.We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4.Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5.We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

6.We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

7.After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.

8.We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

9.We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

10.We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

11.Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Learning from your mistakes is another example of good leadership and intelligence. What did we learn from Viet Nam? Apparently nothing because we keep making the same stupid mistakes.

A "strong position" means standing for something and knowing the difference between right and wrong, friend and foe, smart and dumb, effective and ineffective, good use of military might and foolish waste of military might.

Reagan understood, no president since has.

Reagan was a traitor.

To International communists, yes. He destroyed communism.

Is that why you're so butt-hurt?

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL, this is the internet and even if one element of what you claim is true, the fact remains your response is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking framed by historical events.

One example should suffice: You claim to, "Take a strong position means having principles and having the will to stand for them and the strength to back them up if challenged."

What is a "strong position"? Cowboy Diplomacy, sending the fleet and a couple of carrier groups and setting up a blockade, breaking off all back channel talks? How about some detail? Since you're so self assured and have that Harvard MBA, you must have thought about what you mean by "strong position" and how The President and Secretary of State should have acted.

Obama and Kerry have been prudent, strong, pragmatic and for the moment successful. No one is prescient, least of all you if the body of your work on this forum is any indication. The future is a mystery waiting to be unveiled, and the past is a good measure of what works and what does not. But is cannot predict future events. Some of what I learned at CAL taking courses within my double major - history and poli sci (which included course work in International Relations).

The one certainty is human nature, and the strategy of the Obama Administration suggests this variable is one they properly consider. I suggest you compare the following lesson learned with the former Bush Administration and that of President Obama's (if of course anything you claim is true and you're not the willfully ignorant parrot I believe):

From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam"

1.We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2.We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3.We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4.Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5.We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

6.We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

7.After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.

8.We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

9.We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

10.We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

11.Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Learning from your mistakes is another example of good leadership and intelligence. What did we learn from Viet Nam? Apparently nothing because we keep making the same stupid mistakes.

A "strong position" means standing for something and knowing the difference between right and wrong, friend and foe, smart and dumb, effective and ineffective, good use of military might and foolish waste of military might.

Reagan understood, no president since has.

Reagan was a traitor.

Gee, I wonder who else is a traitor?

 

[Peterf]

Obama got the Syrians to give up their chemical weapons, the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons, and he got bin Laden and Gadaffi.

All without trillion dollar invasions.

It helps to have a smart president.

It was Putin who persuaded Syria to give up their chemical weapon stock pile. Iran has not given up its rive towards becoming a nuclear power. It was Britain and France who got rid of Gadaffi, while the US remained on the sidelines.

But you did terminate bin Laden. Well done! You scored 25%!

 

[Redfish]

LOL, this is the internet and even if one element of what you claim is true, the fact remains your response is ridiculous and demonstrates a complete lack of critical thinking framed by historical events.

One example should suffice: You claim to, "Take a strong position means having principles and having the will to stand for them and the strength to back them up if challenged."

What is a "strong position"? Cowboy Diplomacy, sending the fleet and a couple of carrier groups and setting up a blockade, breaking off all back channel talks? How about some detail? Since you're so self assured and have that Harvard MBA, you must have thought about what you mean by "strong position" and how The President and Secretary of State should have acted.

Obama and Kerry have been prudent, strong, pragmatic and for the moment successful. No one is prescient, least of all you if the body of your work on this forum is any indication. The future is a mystery waiting to be unveiled, and the past is a good measure of what works and what does not. But is cannot predict future events. Some of what I learned at CAL taking courses within my double major - history and poli sci (which included course work in International Relations).

The one certainty is human nature, and the strategy of the Obama Administration suggests this variable is one they properly consider. I suggest you compare the following lesson learned with the former Bush Administration and that of President Obama's (if of course anything you claim is true and you're not the willfully ignorant parrot I believe):

From Robert McNamara's 1995 book "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam"

1.We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.

2.We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.

3.We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.

4.Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.

5.We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.

6.We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.

7.After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.

8.We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.

9.We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.

10.We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

11.Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.

Learning from your mistakes is another example of good leadership and intelligence. What did we learn from Viet Nam? Apparently nothing because we keep making the same stupid mistakes.

A "strong position" means standing for something and knowing the difference between right and wrong, friend and foe, smart and dumb, effective and ineffective, good use of military might and foolish waste of military might.

Reagan understood, no president since has.

Reagan was a traitor.

To your warped sense of right and wrong maybe, but to anyone with a normal brain he was a very good patriotic president, not perfect, but what president has been perfect?

Now, if yoiu want to talk about treason, Lets talk about bowing to muslim kings, weakening the dollar, supporting the muslim brotherhood, dumping on our long time allies, putting americans in harms way and not backing them with requested security.

Lots of treasonous acts by the current administration, If obama was a republican you would be SCREAMING for his impeachment. and you fricken well know it.

 

[Edgetho]

Learning from your mistakes is another example of good leadership and intelligence. What did we learn from Viet Nam? Apparently nothing because we keep making the same stupid mistakes.

A "strong position" means standing for something and knowing the difference between right and wrong, friend and foe, smart and dumb, effective and ineffective, good use of military might and foolish waste of military might.

Reagan understood, no president since has.

Reagan was a traitor.

To your warped sense of right and wrong maybe, but to anyone with a normal brain he was a very good patriotic president, not perfect, but what president has been perfect?

Now, if yoiu want to talk about treason, Lets talk about bowing to muslim kings, weakening the dollar, supporting the muslim brotherhood, dumping on our long time allies, putting americans in harms way and not backing them with requested security.

Lots of treasonous acts by the current administration, If obama was a republican you would be SCREAMING for his impeachment. and you fricken well know it.

Only one president in our History has publicly apologized to Foreign Powers on Foreign territory.......

the Lying Cocksucker In Chief.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Obama got the Syrians to give up their chemical weapons, the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons, and he got bin Laden and Gadaffi.

All without trillion dollar invasions.

It helps to have a smart president.

Obama also said Assad must go he hasn't and that if Assad used chemical weapons it would be crossing his self imposed red line and change his calculus which he did and it didn't Iran does not have any nuclear weapons and there is no evidence to date anything Obama has done has stopped them from pursuing them. Yeah Bin Laden was killed on his watch and since that time Al-Qaeda has been reforming and getting stronger in the region it was the Libyans who killed Gaddafi how ever it was Obama's light footprint approach in Libya after Gaddafi that lead to Benghazi. Smart President that depends on how low you have set the bar for you consider smart.

In 2011 and 2012 Republicans voted down a request from the State Department for more security funding.

Did Republicans hope an attack on Americans overseas would be successful, so they could make political points on it?

I would not put it past them.

You keep repeating that like it proves that Republicans are evil. Funny thing, Spending less than the president asks for is not a cut, neither is spending less than they planned to spend. Democrats voted for the same thing when they had control, even when Obama asked for it Not to mention that State actually had a surplus in their security budget from not spending the money that they actually had.

Wait, I forgot, I am supposed to dissolve into a puddle of knee jerk defense of Republicans, not a rational defense of reducing unlimited spending.

 

[Indofred]

SO FUCKING WHAT!? It doesn't bother me 1 damn bit if Iran has a nuke. Scares me more Israel has one and has a plan to detonate it over Europe in case of an attack...Israel is the unstable nation in the ME not Iran.

I'm unsure Israel has any plan to detonate over Europe in case of attack but I wouldn't put it past their extremist politicians to let one go and try to blame it on Iran or whoever.
They do have a record of false flag and they are religious extremists.

I know Muslims have the rep for religious extremism, and there's no arguing we have our nut jobs, but Israel also has the same sort of people, just with a different brand of extremism and nuclear weapons.

For starters Israel will never allow Iran to complete construction of a nuclear bomb. That's not for debate it's a fact. So it follows that no one is going to track a nuclear armed missile leaving Iran for Venice.
In case Iran attacks Israel with conventional forces/weapons systems multiple cities in Iran will become lakes of molten glass. The Mullahs are well aware of this. Israel will not stop until their nuclear trigger goes 'CLICK' once the first bomb is launched.
What makes the conflict with Iran and Israel somewhat different than the countries ambassadors just screaming their heads off at the UN is every sentient person knows that Israel is 100% guaranteed to be the one country in the world not to hesitate a second to counter attack Iran with nuclear bombs. The Mullahs know this also.

So, you agree with me, Israel is unstable and would use WMD on unarmed civilians.
Thanks for that.

 

[Pete7469]

Reagan was a traitor.

And you should have been aborted, since you weren't swallowed.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'm unsure Israel has any plan to detonate over Europe in case of attack but I wouldn't put it past their extremist politicians to let one go and try to blame it on Iran or whoever.
They do have a record of false flag and they are religious extremists.

I know Muslims have the rep for religious extremism, and there's no arguing we have our nut jobs, but Israel also has the same sort of people, just with a different brand of extremism and nuclear weapons.

For starters Israel will never allow Iran to complete construction of a nuclear bomb. That's not for debate it's a fact. So it follows that no one is going to track a nuclear armed missile leaving Iran for Venice.
In case Iran attacks Israel with conventional forces/weapons systems multiple cities in Iran will become lakes of molten glass. The Mullahs are well aware of this. Israel will not stop until their nuclear trigger goes 'CLICK' once the first bomb is launched.
What makes the conflict with Iran and Israel somewhat different than the countries ambassadors just screaming their heads off at the UN is every sentient person knows that Israel is 100% guaranteed to be the one country in the world not to hesitate a second to counter attack Iran with nuclear bombs. The Mullahs know this also.

So, you agree with me, Israel is unstable and would use WMD on unarmed civilians.
Thanks for that.

No, we wouldn't agree with you ludicrous delusions. What we are saying is that Iran has stated emphatically that it wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet; Israel will not allow that.. it's called self-defense.

 

[Ame®icano]

Obama got the Syrians to give up their chemical weapons, the Iranians to give up their nuclear weapons, and he got bin Laden and Gadaffi.

All without trillion dollar invasions.

It helps to have a smart president.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The average Iranian also gets their health insurance premiums lowered by $2,500!

 

[Indofred]

Israel has not declared that all muslim nations should be destroyed. On the other hand, most muslim nations have called for the destruction of Israel.

Can you grasp the difference between wanting to be left alone to exist and wanting to destroy your neighbors?

Nice claim.
Prove it with links. I'll allow Muslim majority countries, not just countries run on Muslim principles.

I'll make it easy by giving you a little list to start with. Please link to government officials or reliable sites detailing official government policy for more than 50% of Muslim majority nations.

Thanks.

 

[velvtacheeze]

When Iran gets a nuke in 2-3 years...the media will cover up Obama's fingerprints on the bomb.

The aggressiveness of the American right is why Iran might get a bomb. Constant saber rattling from GOP Senators has been a disaster.