BuckToothMoron
Gold Member
- Apr 3, 2016
- 9,909
- 1,908
- 290
You can tell a lot about a culture, their values and their religion by they way they treat women, the elderly, and children. Iran- not so good!
It Ain't A Joke
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
You can tell a lot about a culture, their values and their religion by they way they treat women, the elderly, and children. Iran- not so good!
BuckToothMoron
Gold Member
- Apr 3, 2016
- 9,909
- 1,908
- 290
Tell it to Creepy Roy Moore
You sometimes seem intelligent, but most of the time you are just a liberal partisan hack. You Dems have your share of pedopervs.
Weiner jailed for sexting underage girl
ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 10,874
- 2,529
- 140
It seems not the whole truth. Legally, the marriageable age in Iran now stands at 18 years for males and 15 years for females, but some amendments effectively lower it to 15 for males and 13 for females.
Child marriages are issue not only for Iran but for many countries around the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
Child marriage is a disgrace for society, without a doubt.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #24
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #25
I'm going to assume that Gatestone has a basis for saying this: According to official Iranian statistics, 180,000 child marriages take place there each year.
Let by 7th century religious zealots, I'll assume religious marriages.....to children,.....are allowed.
Interesting that Barack Obama respected these zealots so much that he guaranteed them nuclear weapons.
We've learned a great deal not just about those barbarians, but the barbarians called Democrats, too.
ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 10,874
- 2,529
- 140
Frankly, I dont support your stance about the deal. The issue about it is more complicated than just supporting these zealots or not. I think that the Obama administraion did a right thing signing it.
Moonglow
Diamond Member
In the USA before the women's suffrage movement and the ability for females to vote, the legal age for marriage in many US states was ten years old for females...
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #28
Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Last edited:
ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 10,874
- 2,529
- 140
Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #30
Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pu"lling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Nothing in your post is true.....but is exactly what the Hussein Obama cult wanted you to believe.
Here, a documented refutation of your post.
1. "Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program."
On the contrary, it was a guarantee to the Iranians that they could have nuclear weapons without interference.
NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years:
"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.
In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."
But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal
And that was written three years ago.
2."I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran..."
Of course, that's the DNC line, and totally false.
a. Sanctions were killing them. Luckily, Trump re-instituted same.
b. . 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.
3. "Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. "
That's false.
It was the lie that Ben Rhodes had the press swallow....and you did.
From the NYTimes:
"....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
"In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program."
Ibid.
There never was any such 'moderation' from the savages.
Last edited:
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #31
Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 10,874
- 2,529
- 140
You are welcome. 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.
Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #33
You are welcome. 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.
Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
These are the facts:
Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.
Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #34
You are welcome. 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.
Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
“Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar” Iran's rial hits record-low 100,000 to the dollar
“British Airways and Air France Suspend Flights to Tehran”
British Airways and Air France suspend flights to Tehran
“European airlines are scrapping flights to Iran… Some of Europe's biggest airlines are scrapping flights to Iran just two years after relaunching their services when international sanctions were eased.
British Airways (ICAGY) said it will operate its last flight from Tehran on September 23. Dutch carrier KLM, part of the Air France KLM (AFLYY) group, will stop flying there on September ..” European airlines are scrapping flights to Iran
“German banks pull plug on trade with Iran
Despite Berlin's pledge to keep the Iranian nuclear deal alive, German banks are so scared of breaching US sanctions that they are refusing to process payments from “
https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/...ml?ticket=ST-1629205-qANMiD0IC0f6yfyaa5ml-ap3
They understand what you don't.
ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 10,874
- 2,529
- 140
You are welcome. 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.
Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
These are the facts:
Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.
Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
Actually, you didnt prove anything. You only posted your point of view which I dont support, that's all.
About the agreement. Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires. But, the agreement reduces Iranian nuclear program minimum for 10 years. It imposes strict restrictions on Iran: Iran must drastically reduce the number of its centrifuges, reduce stockpile of its enriched uranium by more than 90 percent, rebuild its facilities in Fordo and Arak, is forbidden to enrich uranium more than 3 and somethings percent, and so on. And all that areafacts. Also, the inspectors of IAEA have wide access to Iranian nuclear objects and IAEA has continually confirmed that Iran complies with the agreement.
You criticise the agreement but dont mention that so-called breakaway time was less than three month. If not the agreement then what should be done to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Military operation? Thanks, the US has already caused enough mess in the Middle East.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #36
You are welcome. 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.Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
These are the facts:
Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.
Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
Actually, you didnt prove anything. You only posted your point of view which I dont support, that's all.
About the agreement. Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires. But, the agreement reduces Iranian nuclear program minimum for 10 years. It imposes strict restrictions on Iran: Iran must drastically reduce the number of its centrifuges, reduce stockpile of its enriched uranium by more than 90 percent, rebuild its facilities in Fordo and Arak, is forbidden to enrich uranium more than 3 and somethings percent, and so on. And all that areafacts. Also, the inspectors of IAEA have wide access to Iranian nuclear objects and IAEA has continually confirmed that Iran complies with the agreement.
You criticise the agreement but dont mention that so-called breakaway time was less than three month. If not the agreement then what should be done to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Military operation? Thanks, the US has already caused enough mess in the Middle East.
Perhaps you should clean off your specs, and note that I quoted NPR and the NYTimes.
Here is our exchange again:
You:
"Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pu"lling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.[/QUOTE]
Me:
Nothing in your post is true.....but is exactly what the Hussein Obama cult wanted you to believe.
Here, a documented refutation of your post.
1. "Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program."
On the contrary, it was a guarantee to the Iranians that they could have nuclear weapons without interference.
NPR wrote that they were restricted for 10 years, at which point Iran can and will have nuclear weapons.:
"Perhaps the biggest unknown is what happens to that breakout time once some of the terms of this deal start to expire 10 and 15 years from now.
In an interview with NPR after the framework of this agreement was reached, President Obama conceded that "at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero."
But this deal, Obama argued at the time, buys the United States at least a decade."
6 Things You Should Know About The Iran Nuclear Deal
And that was written three years ago.
2."I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran..."
Of course, that's the DNC line, and totally false.
a. Sanctions were killing them. Luckily, Trump re-instituted same.
b. . 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.
3. "Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. "
That's false.
It was the lie that Ben Rhodes/Obama had the press swallow....and you did.
From the NYTimes:
"....Rhodes’s war room did its work on Capitol Hill and with reporters. In the spring of last year, legions of arms-control experts began popping up at think tanks and on social media, and then became key sources for hundreds of often-clueless reporters. “We created an echo chamber,” he admitted, when I asked him to explain the onslaught of freshly minted experts cheerleading for the deal. “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
"In the narrative that Rhodes shaped, the “story” of the Iran deal began in 2013, when a “moderate” faction inside the Iranian regime led by Hassan Rouhani beat regime “hard-liners” in an election and then began to pursue a policy of “openness,” which included a newfound willingness to negotiate the dismantling of its illicit nuclear-weapons program."
Ibid.
There never was any such 'moderation' from the savages.
You position is akin to buying barbed wire so the Nazis can be sure to keep Jews penned in for slaughter.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #37
You are welcome. 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.Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
These are the facts:
Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.
Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
Actually, you didnt prove anything. You only posted your point of view which I dont support, that's all.
About the agreement. Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires. But, the agreement reduces Iranian nuclear program minimum for 10 years. It imposes strict restrictions on Iran: Iran must drastically reduce the number of its centrifuges, reduce stockpile of its enriched uranium by more than 90 percent, rebuild its facilities in Fordo and Arak, is forbidden to enrich uranium more than 3 and somethings percent, and so on. And all that areafacts. Also, the inspectors of IAEA have wide access to Iranian nuclear objects and IAEA has continually confirmed that Iran complies with the agreement.
You criticise the agreement but dont mention that so-called breakaway time was less than three month. If not the agreement then what should be done to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Military operation? Thanks, the US has already caused enough mess in the Middle East.
"Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires."
Any intelligent person can state exactly what the situation will be: a nuclear Iran, ruled by a 7th century barbarian mentality.
ESay
Gold Member
- Mar 14, 2015
- 10,874
- 2,529
- 140
About liberalisation.
I have the slightest idea what Ben Rhodes said about that. I have my opinion based on what I have heard and read. Loosening the dress code, increasing of marriageable age, allowing non-Iranian husband and children of Iranian women to become citizens of Iran (previously, this right had only males for their wife and children), electing a Zoroastrian to represent in the parliament mostly Muslim community. All that shows that the rules are softening. Of course, it is too early to say that a major shift has happened. But I hope that small steps will lead to a great movement.
The major point is that Iran is on the bottom-line of Muslim rule. And it can stay there or move only up. So, the support is needed for those who endorse the second option. And the JCPOA is such endorsing.
I have the slightest idea what Ben Rhodes said about that. I have my opinion based on what I have heard and read. Loosening the dress code, increasing of marriageable age, allowing non-Iranian husband and children of Iranian women to become citizens of Iran (previously, this right had only males for their wife and children), electing a Zoroastrian to represent in the parliament mostly Muslim community. All that shows that the rules are softening. Of course, it is too early to say that a major shift has happened. But I hope that small steps will lead to a great movement.
The major point is that Iran is on the bottom-line of Muslim rule. And it can stay there or move only up. So, the support is needed for those who endorse the second option. And the JCPOA is such endorsing.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #39
You are welcome. 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.Perhaps you can explain why you agree with trashing fifty years of the non-proliferation policy of civilized nation, especially why you would end it in favor of 7th century savages......the certified world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Waiting.
Well, the JCPOA (the nuclear agreement) was intended to halt Iranian nuclear program. I know that many Americans think that the agreement has many flaws which enable Iran to continue developing its program secretly. But this agreement was the only mean to bargain with Iran (halting the program in exchange for economic preferences). When this mean ceases to exist, what is Iranian regime supposed to do? Develop its nuclear program as quickly as possible.
Then, Iranian regime has been showing some signs of liberalisation. And I think that it is reasonable to encourage that by allowing Iran to international cooperation. Instead, pulling out of the agreement only gave an advantage to Iranian conservatives who were against the agreement from the start.
Also, Iran being the sponsor number one of terrorism is a little bit of exaggeration. Look at your ally Saudi Arabia for example.
In a nutshell.
Let me thank you for offering a response....most on your side of the argument won't even try.
Actually, I proved that every one of your points was false.....and I used Liberal outlets to prove same: NPR, and the NYTimes.
No one will stand in the way of American economic power, and the parsimonious interests of European nations will crumble, and the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism will be stymied.
These are the facts:
Barack Obama was ushering in the age of the ‘Iranian Nuclear Bomb’ and fueling Iran’s war machine.
Barack Obama, the #1 funder of radical Islamic fundamentalism and of the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism, in the history of the world.
Under Hussein Obama, the United States was the lead benefactor of Islamic terrorism
He gave his nod to ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons for 7th century barbarians.
Barack Obama, in addition to slowing the rise of the oceans, also made the world a safer place to be by funding the world’s worst state sponsor of terrorism while not restricting their ballistic missile program and, at the same time, supporting Hezbollah.
The best friend the homicidal maniacs in charge of Iran ever had was Barack Hussein Obama.
The big question about Hussein Obama was always was he Sunni or Shia…and with the Iran deal, we got answer.
Actually, you didnt prove anything. You only posted your point of view which I dont support, that's all.
About the agreement. Yes, the JCPOA is limited in time and no one can say for sure what will be when it expires. But, the agreement reduces Iranian nuclear program minimum for 10 years. It imposes strict restrictions on Iran: Iran must drastically reduce the number of its centrifuges, reduce stockpile of its enriched uranium by more than 90 percent, rebuild its facilities in Fordo and Arak, is forbidden to enrich uranium more than 3 and somethings percent, and so on. And all that areafacts. Also, the inspectors of IAEA have wide access to Iranian nuclear objects and IAEA has continually confirmed that Iran complies with the agreement.
You criticise the agreement but dont mention that so-called breakaway time was less than three month. If not the agreement then what should be done to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons? Military operation? Thanks, the US has already caused enough mess in the Middle East.
" It imposes strict restrictions on Iran"
Of course it doesn't.
There is no way for anyone to tell whether, and how much, Iran is cheating on the agreement.
Watch me prove this via the LATimes, a Liberal organ:
1. "The deal's provisions for inspections of military facilities, or "undeclared sites," involve a complex process with plenty of opportunities for Iran to stall. Tehran can propose alternatives to on-site inspections, or reject the request, which would trigger a 24-day process for the Joint Commission countries to override the rejection.
That could drag on for months. And under ambiguities built into the deal, it's unclear whether Iran must allow IAEA inspectors into military sites, or whether the Iranians can take their own environmental samples and send them to the IAEA for testing, as was allowed under a 2015 side agreement that let Iran use its own experts to inspect the Parchin military site."
U.S. seeks to test Iran deal with more inspections
2. The starting point is the fact that no Liberal/Democrat has been able to answer this question successfully:
What possible benefit is there to America, or to the world, in awarding nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism?
3.Contrary to the flaccid argument that Iran is in compliance with the agreement….and no matter who says it…..there is no way to know. The 7th century savages have a built-in dodge: Iran has 14 day to say whether to allow inspections asked for, and actually has the ability to delay any inspections up to 24 days.
There is no way of ascertaining whether or not Iran is adhering to the terms.
What sort of moron would on our side would sign that sort of deal???
There are no inspections and when requested, the savages can stall for 24 days.
Hence, the deal is a fraud to give the Iranians nuclear weapons.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #40
" I have my opinion based on what I have heard and read."
As I have shown, with documentation, your opinion is wrong, and a danger to America and the world.
You support making Iran into the sort of problem that North Korea is.
The NYTimes article on Ben Rhodes lying to a malleable press is here:
The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Trump Insists that Abrego-Garcia has "MS-13" tattooed on his knuckles- Started by Dont Taz Me Bro
- Replies: 6
-
-
share more AD Judge orders release of Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi from ICE detention after his arrest during citi- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 2
-
trump says, "I'd like to be Pope." SERIOUSLY HE SAID THAT- Started by JimH52
- Replies: 30
