Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[whutTHEYsay]

JH 10924504

Republicans are realists in this case. They know dam well an agreement made by Iran won’t be worth the paper it is written on....but the signature of a US President would force the US to abide by the terms.

What is 'real' about speculating based upon political bias regarding what might or might not happen in the future? Second question is why does the signature of a US President force the US to abide by the terms of the agreement if Iraq violates the agreement. Obama says if Iran tries to break out and start making a nuclear bomb the US has the option that they always have of bombing their nuclear facilities? The US only abides by the agreement if Iran complies fully with the agreement. The
'signature of a US President' part of your comment makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Erni 11143700

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article? #3557

BULL !!! This one on your side is advocating that the US President orders the USAF to commit Mass Murder.

11143961

Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.#3560

That's not a 'good agreement' is it?

Do you condemn calling for America and the US Air Force to commit mass murder as Slyhunter is doing? Tell us what you think and then I'll get to your argument that what is on the table is not a good agreement?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Erni 11143744

It's even better if we replace OUR leaders with ones who will make a good deal #3559

Do you support Republican Senator Rand Paul or Scott Walker on the Iranian deal? How do you know any of the Republican hopefuls could actually hold the P5+1 and UNSC together to re-impose sanctions even when and if Iraq complies with the deal over the next two years and then toward the later stages 15 years from now. Not all sanctions are lifted immediately anyway - what did Reagan say - trust by verify.

Walker is a nut-job neocon on Iran negotiations. The French, Germans and Brits need to hear what this whacko said and knock him down if he ever gets close to winning the GOP nomination.

 

[Ernie S.]

Erni 11143700

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article? #3557

BULL !!! This one on your side is advocating that the US President orders the USAF to commit Mass Murder.

11143961

Moab their capital buildings and their private homes.#3560

That's not a 'good agreement' is it?

Do you condemn the America and the US Air Force committing mass murder as Slyhunter is doing? Tell us what you think and then I'll get to your argument that what is on the table is not a good agreement?

War should always be the last option on the table, but it should always be on the table.
Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons.
If diplomacy fails, it fails. If we need to go to war, so be it. I say we fight to win. No more stand offs like we have played since 1945. We WIN!

 

[Ernie S.]

I've not read Paul or Walker's comments.

I simply contend that barack obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran. He doesn't have the balls.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Erni 11144938

Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. #3564

That is exactly the position of the P5+1 countries which included the US of course. IF Republicans and a few Democrats screw up this deal, those other five countries most likely don't go back to sanctions as they've held together since 2012. Then there is 'no deal' and not much chance for the US to negotiate a 'good deal' on its own. Netanyahu wants Iraq to have no peaceful nuclear power at all. If that is what you think is an obtainable deal with Iran without war you have not thought this through very well.

So you are not disgusted by SLYHUNTER enough to renounce his murderous plan. I see?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Erni 11144949

He doesn't have the balls. #3566

That is quite the ignorant argument. You don't have much education or curiosity on the subject do you?. Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan his first year in office during the first year of recovery from the worst recession that hit under GW Bush.

Obama ordered the largest US Marines air to ground assault in May 2009 since the Vietnam war into Helmand and Kandahar Province in Afghanistan to secure the election in 2010.

Obama has ordered more air strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda and Daesh than any President in US history.

He stood up to Maliki and got him out of office by peaceful means. His predecessor was pushed around by Maliki for two years. He sent the Navy Seals into Pakistan to get OBL. He forced Putin and Assad to give up 1300 Tons of chemical weapons that would have been a threat to Israel had Daesh terrorist scum gained access to them during the civil war in Syria.

We had a President that Republicans think had balls for eight years. No thanks on using that as criteria for a US President specifically combined with having no brains.

 

[Jroc]

He doesn't have the balls.

That is quite the ignorant argument. You don't have much education or curiosity on the subject. Obama tripled the number of troops in Afghanistan his first year in office during the first year of recovery from the worst recession that hit under GW Bush.

Obama ordered the largest US Marines air to ground assault in May 2009 since the Vietnam war into Helmand and Kandahar Province in Afghanistan to secure the election in 2010.

Obama has ordered more air strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda and Daesh than any President in US history.

He stood up to Maliki and got him out of office by peaceful means. His predecessor was pushed around by Maliki for two years. He sent the Navy Seals into Pakistan to get OBL. He forced Putin and Assad to give up 1300 Tons of chemical weapons that would have been a threat to Israel had Daesh terrorist scum gained access to them during the civil war in Syria.

We had a President that Republicans think had balls for eight years. No thanks on using that as criteria for a US President specifically combined with having no brains.

Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power, He also abandon Iraq and allowed the terrorist scum Isis to gain in strength and power before he did anything.He's allowed Iran to spread it power and influence into Iraq, Yemen, Syria, throughout the region, he likes them, Obama also backed the muslim brotherhood take over of Egypt. Thank G-d Sisi got rid of them, against the wishes of our idiot president. The entire middle east is on fire, because of the incompetence of this pathetic, poor excuse for a president, but you love him because you're a fellow idiot

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Erni 11144949

I've not read Paul or Walker's comments.I simply contend that barack obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran.

You "simply" contend that Obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran, yet you don't keep up with the opposition leadership has to say about reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran or reaching no deal with Iran. How do you know what a 'satisfactory deal' is and whether a Republican can come up with something better. Odds are they can't and won't then the primary option will have to be war. And you claim war should be the last resort. Your are not making much sense here even under this immediate observation.

 

[Jroc]

Erni 11144949

I've not read Paul or Walker's comments.I simply contend that barack obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran.

You "simply" contend that Obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran, yet you don't keep up with the opposition leadership has to say about reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran or reaching no deal with Iran. How do you know what a 'satisfactory deal' is and whether a Republican can come up with something better. Odds are they can't and won't then the primary option will have to be war. And you claim war should be the last resort. Your are not making much sense here even under this immediate observation.

There is no deal you moron Obama is incompetent understand?

 

[Ernie S.]

Erni 11144938

Iran must not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. #3564

That is exactly the position of the P5+1 countries which included the US of course. IF Republicans and a few Democrats screw up this deal, those other five countries most likely don't go back to sanctions as they've held together since 2012. Then there is 'no deal' and not much chance for the US to negotiate a 'good deal' on its own. Netanyahu wants Iraq to have no peaceful nuclear power at all. If that is what you think is an obtainable deal with Iran without war you have not thought this through very well.

So you are not disgusted by SLYHUNTER enough to renounce his murderous plan. I see?

A plan of last resort, as I said. War is murderous. It's horrible and should be, but once engages in, you must fight to win.

 

[Ernie S.]

Erni 11144949

I've not read Paul or Walker's comments.I simply contend that barack obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran.

You "simply" contend that Obama is incapable of reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran, yet you don't keep up with the opposition leadership has to say about reaching a satisfactory deal with Iran or reaching no deal with Iran. How do you know what a 'satisfactory deal' is and whether a Republican can come up with something better. Odds are they can't and won't then the primary option will have to be war. And you claim war should be the last resort. Your are not making much sense here even under this immediate observation.

I don't have to know what Walker and Paul are saying to know they can come up with a better deal. I've been watching obama **** up everything he does for six years and conclude that my 12 year old Bichon Frise Bert could negotiate a better deal than President obama

 

[Care4all]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?

what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP? Anything Obama didn't make...???

Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?

Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....

 

[Ernie S.]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?

what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP? Anything Obama didn't make...???

Truthfully, pretty much. Again, I have seen nothing in the last 6 years that would indicate that barack obama is capable of tying his own shoes.

Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?

A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.

Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....

Suppose you tell me what obama and Kerry will settle for and how they intend to enforce an agreement with a country who is historically incapable of abiding by agreements.

 

[Slyhunter]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?

what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP? Anything Obama didn't make...???

Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?

Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....

A good agreement is one that guarantees that Iran won't build any nukes.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power,

A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.

If you call for "No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING" you are nearly all alone in the world of nations. Therefore you are not for a good deal - you are for NO DEAL - you are for war as the first resort. You can fool no one with your doublesspeak.

 

[Slyhunter]

Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power,

A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.

If you call for "No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING" you are nearly all alone in the world of nations. Therefore you are not for a good deal - you are for NO DEAL - you are for war as the first resort. You can fool no one with your doublesspeak.

Bullshit.

 

[Jroc]

Obama converted Libya into a failed state by bombing Kadahfi out of power,

A good agreement is one that lets Iran know that the US means business and that there will be very serious consequences if Iran continues to develop nuclear capability.
No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING.

If you call for "No enrichment. No centrifuges. No underground bunkers. NOTHING" you are nearly all alone in the world of nations. Therefore you are not for a good deal - you are for NO DEAL - you are for war as the first resort. You can fool no one with your doublesspeak.

Absolutly, that used to be Obama's position, but you're an idiot and don't even realize it

 

[Jroc]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?

what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP? Anything Obama didn't make...???

Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?

Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....

What a bunch of sheep, there is no "deal" and there will only be a "deal" after congress approves the final agreement. if not there will be no deal understand?

 

[Care4all]

"Peace for our time"

From Thomas Sowell:

If you look back through history, you will be hard pressed to find a leader of any democratic nation so universally popular -- hailed enthusiastically by opposition parties as well as his own -- as was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain when he returned from Munich in 1938, waving an agreement with Hitler's signature on it, and proclaiming "Peace for our time."

Who cared that he had thrown a small country to the Nazi wolves, in order to get a worthless agreement with Hitler? It looked great at the time because it had apparently avoided war.

Now Barack Obama seems ready to repeat that political triumph by throwing another small country -- Israel this time -- to the wolves, for the sake of another worthless agreement.

Back in 1938, Winston Churchill was one of the very few critics who tried to warn Chamberlain and the British public. Churchill said: "The idea that safety can be purchased by throwing a small State to the wolves is a fatal delusion."

After the ruinous agreement was made with Hitler, he said: "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war." Chamberlain's "Peace for our time" lasted just under a year.

Comparing Obama to Chamberlain is unfair -- to Chamberlain. There is no question that the British prime minister loved his country and pursued its best interests as he saw it. He was not a "citizen of the world," or worse. Chamberlain was building up his country's military forces, not tearing them down, as Barack Obama has been doing with American military forces.

piss and vinegar article imho.... with no solutions....

how is trying to curb Iran from getting nuclear weapons throwing Israel under a bus more so than they are under that bus without an agreement?

how is ''no agreement'' better and safer for Israel? Be specific please....

No one is advocating "no agreement". The GOP wants a good agreement, not a Neville Chamberlain agreement, or did you miss the whole point of Dr. Sowell's article?

what IS A GOOD agreement according to the GOP? Anything Obama didn't make...???

Why are ALL OF YOU GOPers bitching n moaning about how bad this agreement is while NOT offering up what you all think is a GOOD agreement that you would accept?

Just seems like partisan bull crud to me, without ever taking a stance on what you/the gop actually want....or what is acceptable to you....

A good agreement is one that guarantees that Iran won't build any nukes.

And your plan to accomplish this is WHAT? Tell us all this ingenious and PERFECT plan of yours (gop's) to accomplish this feat of yours....

This is just partisan mouthing off from the Peanut Gallery.... AGAIN from the Do Nothings in congress....