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

[JakeStarkey]

I am saying that the GOP is once again obstructing what they cannot stop. They have tried it before. Now 47 of our Senators are saber rattling at Iran. The American people will not accept that stupidity.

 

[BULLDOG]

Republicans want nothing short of war with Iran.

Naw I think they are more about a war with Obama, and good on them for it.

Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?

"Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?

Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.

And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.

Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.

When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.

I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?

Just to clarify. Your understanding is that we either agree to let Iran go to war with nuclear weapons or they will choose to go to war now to get nuclear weapons.

Now that would be stupid wouldn't it. I know that is the scenario right wing radio is pushing, but far from the truth. The president has said many times in the framework of this negotiation that a bomb is not acceptable. From my understanding, Iran claims they want nuclear power, and they intend to produce that. Centrifuges can be used for that or a bomb, but they have to be configured in different ways depending on what they want to produce. The treaty will guarantee frequent inspections to determine the configuration of those centrifuges. Without a treaty for inspections, we will have no choice but to destroy that equipment which will cause war. With a treaty, we will immediately know if the configuration has been changed to produce material for a bomb. It takes at least a year from the time they are reconfigured until bomb material can be produced, and we can destroy it then. I wish they would sign a treaty fo more than ten years, but ten is better than nothing. Inspections are better than war.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Don't worry Statist, your letter pledging undying support for Iran and the goals of radical Islam will counter balance this...

 

[Siete]

what? you mean the Republicans didn't invite them to come and speak to congress so every voting RW'r in the country could rub one off every day for the next month ?

Nettie and Pooten' have been slighted.

 

[Political Junky]

If the United States electorate even suspect a Republican President and Congress are intending to go to war with Iran, the entire American national government will be blue in the white house and the capitol.

Yep -

 

[Katzndogz]

It was a wise move. The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.

There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws. It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.

The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.

If you think this presidunce doesn't need congressional approval of this treaty you know less than everyone.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

The nuclear armed Iran that Obama seeks is not a good treaty.

 

[boilermaker55]

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons

1. the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
   "they were convicted of treason"
   synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
   sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
   high treason, lèse-majesté;
   apostasy;
   literaryperfidy
   "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
   antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
   • the action of betraying someone or something.
     plural noun: treasons
     "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
     synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
     sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
     high treason, lèse-majesté;
     apostasy;
     literaryperfidy
     "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
     antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
   • historical
     the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
     noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons

Cool.... !!!!

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course it is about opposing Obama, but they are willing to start a war and waste the lives and money of out country to do it. How can they tell a mother that their child's life was sacrificed because the right doesn't like having a black president?

"Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?

Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.

And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.

Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.

When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.

I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?

Fortunately Congress can't force a war...

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

 

[MACAULAY]

After over six years of the greatest liar we have ever had for a president...and knowing he is also a narcissist and a coward...his true motive in his bogus deal with Iran is clear to all but the willingly blind.

He hopes to get the Iranians to NOT openly declare that they have a nuclear bomb until he is well out of office...so he can blame the next president.

That's all. And so good for the Senators for letting the lunatic Ayatollahs know we aren't all as selfish and foolish as Obama.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It was a wise move. The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.

There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws. It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.

The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.

If you think this presidunce doesn't need congressional approval of this treaty you know less than everyone.

Thank you, and the fool immediately above, for showing us that you know nothing.

 

[Jarhead]

"Did the letter to the Iranian leadership say "we will eliminate the agreement and then start a war with you"?

Seems the only ones on this thread talking about war are those on the left claiming that the right wants war.

And then there is the fool that YOU are bulldog who claimed the right prefers to going to war over supporting a blacks presidents initiatives.

Which means you fell into using 2 unsubstantiated talking points in one post.

When one spins or uses unsubstantiated talking points, one proves to the rest that he or she feels very weak in his/her position.

I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?

Fortunately Congress can't force a war...

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

 

[BULLDOG]

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

The nuclear armed Iran that Obama seeks is not a good treaty.

Quit listening to rush. Nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran.

 

[Jarhead]

It was a wise move. The Iranians may not know that action taken without congressional approval only has the force of an executive order which can be revoked by another executive order.

There's nothing wrong with educating Iran about our laws. It's better than thinking they have an agreement when they could wake up to a new pen, a new phone and a brand new eraser.

The Iranians know more about our laws than you, tipsy.

If you think this presidunce doesn't need congressional approval of this treaty you know less than everyone.

Thank you for showing us that you know nothing.

2 thirds of the senate is required to ratify a treaty...otherwise it is a personal agreement between two heads of state.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Quit listening to rush. Nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran.

Almost no one. I'm perfectly fine with it. Nations are allowed to build weapons.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?

Fortunately Congress can't force a war...

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

Iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon, and if they ever get that far, the Israel air force will turn those centers into nuclear holocausts.

 

[g5000]

We interrupt this program for a BROWN ALERT! BROWN ALERT! BROWN ALERT! Iran is trying to build a nuke! Shit your pants!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Given the fact that there has been no evidence put forward which proves that Iran is even seeking a nuclear weapons capability......all of this shit only serves to strengthen the hand that they have in negotiations. They would love for us to approach them as if they are days away from the bomb. It gives them leverage.

Iran should be trying like hell to develop nuclear weapons. It is a sure fire way to ensure that we won't **** with them.

The leaders of Iran are not suicidal. They have as much right to develop these weapons as we do. Our arrogance is without equal.

 

[Camp]

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun
noun: treason; noun: high treason; plural noun: high treasons

1. the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.
   "they were convicted of treason"
   synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
   sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
   high treason, lèse-majesté;
   apostasy;
   literaryperfidy
   "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
   antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
   • the action of betraying someone or something.
     plural noun: treasons
     "doubt is the ultimate treason against faith"
     synonyms: treachery, disloyalty, betrayal, faithlessness;More
     sedition, subversion, mutiny, rebellion;
     high treason, lèse-majesté;
     apostasy;
     literaryperfidy
     "the treason of Benedict Arnold will be recounted for centuries"
     antonyms: allegiance, loyalty
   • historical
     the crime of murdering someone to whom the murderer owed allegiance, such as a master or husband.
     noun: petty treason; plural noun: petty treasons

Cool.... !!!!

Republicans have excuses for their treason. Posters here are 'splaining them.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm quite confident in my points. The letter was an obvious effort to prevent the signing of any treaty. We either get them to agree to not building a bomb, or we have to go to war. Those are the only two options. Why are you supporting the traitorous actions of crazy republicans?

Fortunately Congress can't force a war...

If they hijack the chances of a good treaty, the only alternative will be war.

you have an error in your premise....well...more than one.

You are assuming the treaty is a good one...a treaty is a good one ONLY if both sides adhere to it. Exactly what gives you reason to believe Iran will adhere to it? Their past? Their open desire to destroy a sovereign nation? The fact that they fund terrorism? The fact that they moved quickly to meet the first deadline?

Secondly.....stricter sanctions...whats wrong with that?

I know..."sanctions don't work"...I get it.....but...."Iran adhering to a treaty will? Really?

They might not adhere to it. At the point they deny frequent inspections, we will be in exactly the same position we are in now without a treaty. Bombing them out of business would be appropriate.

First of all...these "talks" have been going on for a year. They ignored the first deadline. So they are one year closer to nuclear capability. By the time they no longer adhere to inspections...they will be that must closer to the objective...and if the objective was accomplished, military action will be hampered if not completely eliminated by the fear of them using that capability on an innocent country around them.

I don't think they have inspections now. That's what the treaty is for.