U.S.-Iran Deal....One More Time

[mudwhistle]

I saw the intel reports when I was in Mogadishu Somalia 93', and the crates the insurgents left behind in Iraq that held their explosives were clearly marked that they came from Tehran....so you can just toss off wanker.

Speaking of wankers, First you claim that Iran was sending arms to Iraq and Afghanistan....NOW, realizing what a stupid statement that is, you switch to Somalia.....

Obviously you can't ******* read. Go back and read my posts and you'll realize that I was talking about the hostage crisis in 79', Blackhawk Down in 93', and Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to present.

Learn how to read shitforbrains.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, right wingers, pound your chests surround yourselves with US flags etc. and keep on assuming that all Muslims are below the human level (why can't they be as tolerant and enlightened as Texans, for example)...

Let's see....
Iranians BAD; Iraqis BAD, Saudis BAD, Syrians, BAD, Afghanis, BAD; Yemenis BAD, Egyptians, BAD, Libyans, BAD, Somalis WORSE...

US GOOD....Israeli BETTER...

...and then we wonder why so many people throughout the world either hate us or think we're fools.

Kuwaitis....Good.

 

[nat4900]

Obviously you can't ******* read. Go back and read my posts and you'll realize that I was talking about the hostage crisis in 79', Blackhawk Down in 93', and Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to present.

Learn how to read shitforbrains.

Still the idiot......Why don't you research the WHY they took over the Embassy in '79......Here, I'll give you a hint: Mosadegh vs. the CIA.

 

[nat4900]

Kuwaitis....Good.

Funny.....Kuwaitis used to be Iraqis before the Brits fucked up the entire region for their oil greed.

 

[mudwhistle]

Obviously you can't ******* read. Go back and read my posts and you'll realize that I was talking about the hostage crisis in 79', Blackhawk Down in 93', and Iraq and Afghanistan from 2003 to present.

Learn how to read shitforbrains.

Still the idiot......Why don't you research the WHY they took over the Embassy in '79......Here, I'll give you a hint: Mosadegh vs. the CIA.

I don't have to research it. I read about it years ago.
This is the kind of shit that Iran pulls....not the United States. If we had taken their diplomats hostage the outcry would have been long and hard. That was an act of war, and we did nothing to punish them....in fact.....that silly prick in the White House is kissing their asses instead of kicking them in the balls.

One of the languages I had to learn for my job in the Army was Persian-farce. Iranians taught it to me. The people, for the most part are decent. It's the religious conservative assholes that are running Iran that are screwed up.

We're done talking about it ************. You keep living with your head up your ass and your hatred for this country.

Go **** yourself you piece of shit!!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

Kuwaitis....Good.

Funny.....Kuwaitis used to be Iraqis before the Brits fucked up the entire region for their oil greed.

And your point is what????

 

[MACAULAY]

Action 3: Bomb the heck of Iran's nuclear sites....
Consequence 3: Bombing another country is NOT without risks; Israel's bombing of Syria and Iraq's sites increased the proxy war against Israel and fanned the hatred. Were the U.S. bomb Iran, hate toward us would further intensify, AND our allies would justifiably view us as, once again, the aggressors......any chances of diplomacy would be dead.....and such actions would simply postpone Iran's nuclear arsenal by (estimated) two to three years.
______________________________________________

From the O. P.'s choices, I pick this one.

I fear a nuclear Iran more than I do the consequences listed. I think we cannot trust religious fanatics with a nuclear weapon. And I think they will have one very soon if Obama has his way. His deal is to get his own ass safely out of office before the fact is known that Iran has a nuclear bomb. Because he is a chicken-shit son-of-a-***** liar.

Israel's bombing of Syrian and Iraqi nuclear sites was a good thing. God forbid those Cretans have a nuclear bomb today---where would the world be?

This move by Israel the O.P. says: "increased the proxy war....and fanned the hatred".

Is that all? Hatred in the Middle East has been a common commodity for 2 thousand years. Its a price I would gladly pay for not having Assad and or Isis armed right now with a nuclear bomb.

If we bombed Iran, "hate would intensify".

Really? These lunatics have been marching in the streets of Tehran for 35 years flagellating themselves while screaming "Death to America" and it is America and Israel who they had in mind when they embarked 30 years ago on a program to build a nuclear bomb---which they will never ever give up no matter how much Obama lies to the American people.

Only Iran will consider us as Aggressors---the rest of the Mid East will hail us as heroes for they are in almost as much fear for their survival as Israel.

Iran is more of a threat to World peace right now, than Nazi Germany was in 1936.

Its going to be tough medicine, no matter what. Fanatics in control of 77 million people--which is Iran population---are going to be tough to deal with. But with a nuclear bomb---impossible to deal with.

I prefer to take the medicine now when Iran is weak and the whole Middle-East is against them...so maybe my kids won't have to deal with them when they own the Mid-East and have the big bomb.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Recall that during Gulf War I Continued, in the 2000s, a number of bombing missions were staged by U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers. Some came from the island of Diego Garcia... but most of them took off from their home base in Missouri, and flew literally halfway around the world, refueling in the air again and again, dropping their precision bombs on Iraqi targets, and flying all the way back (with more aerial refueling) to Missouri.

And the first few times this was done, the Iraqis didn't even know they'd been bombed. The planes were impossible to detect on radar, and they flew very high, above 30,000 feet, and could not be heard or seen. It was an ordinary day in Baghdad, with people walking around and children playing in the parks, when suddenly a government building halfway down the block exploded and collapsed. Officials assumed at first it was an accident (natural gas explosion?), or possibly sabotage by someone who had planted one or more bombs inside the building. Only when the U.S. announced details of the mission, did Iraq realize what had happened.

Fast forward to 2017, after Obama is replaced as President. I wonder if there is maybe an isolated B-2 bomber at the base in Missouri, that is quietly wheeled into a hangar one evening, and the doors closed and locked for maybe a week so nobody could see what's inside? And maybe nobody notices when the hangar doors quietly opened, maybe at 3AM in the morning, the plane wheels out and takes off as the hangar doors close again? And anybody who asks, is told that of course that B-2 is still inside? And then several days later, maybe a plane lands quietly at 2AM, the hangar doors open and the plane is wheeled inside, the doors closing immediately? And there is no need to publish the periodic inventory of heavy ground-penetrating "bunker buster" bombs. A few are always expended in various training and practice flights at bombing ranges.

Might one of these mysterious explosions at an Iranian nuclear facility, take place sometime during the period when the plane was ostensibly still inside the hangar? And no aircraft were seen or heard in that part of Iran, nor were any picked up on radar?

And did any of the various refueling planes stationed around the world, happen to fly any "training" missions" during that time?

Of course, the U.S. would have nothing to do with the mysterious explosion inside Iran's nuclear facility. It's not our problem, and there is no evidence of any agents entering Iran and getting inside any nuclear facility to plant the bomb that must have gone off. It's more likely a disaffected Iranian scientist who didn't want the research tio go in the direction he knew it was going.

This is all theoretical, of course.

But wouldn't it be nice to see the U.S. government telling a lie that actually benefitted U.S. interests, for a change? Instead of simply benefitting a few high-level Democrats?

Why not just drop a nuke and claim they blew themselves up?

 

[nat4900]

We're done talking about it ************. You keep living with your head up your ass and your hatred for this country.

Go **** yourself you piece of shit!!!![/QUOTE]


Ahh, yet another Shakespearean sonnet writer wanna-be......LOL

AND, IDIOT its not Persian-Farce....maybe you meant Farsi????

 

[nat4900]

And I think they will have one very soon if Obama has his way. His deal is to get his own ass safely out of office before the fact is known that Iran has a nuclear bomb. Because he is a chicken-shit son-of-a-***** liar.

Kind of shown your true colors with that little post, don't you think?

Then let me UN-confuse you....Above you state.." I think they will have one very soon..."....then you state, "..... before the fact is known that Iran has a nuclear bomb.."

So, which is it........ they have one NOW or will have one SOON?

 

[MACAULAY]

And I think they will have one very soon if Obama has his way. His deal is to get his own ass safely out of office before the fact is known that Iran has a nuclear bomb. Because he is a chicken-shit son-of-a-***** liar.

Kind of shown your true colors with that little post, don't you think?

Then let me UN-confuse you....Above you state.." I think they will have one very soon..."....then you state, "..... before the fact is known that Iran has a nuclear bomb.."

So, which is it........ they have one NOW or will have one SOON?

____________________________

This has been a decent thread, and you started it, so there's that.

But this response is weak. It a nit-pick. Don't you think?

Iran doesn't have a nuclear bomb today, but Obama has decided to trust them (or at least tell the American people he trusts them), so he won't have to bomb them (As he is a chicken-shit son-of-a-*****)----which means they will have one soon.

Obama just hopes the world won't realize it before he is safely out of office and can blame his successor.

Now that we have cleared up that technicality which you raised (in an obvious dodge), will you address the real issues raised in my response to your O. P. ????????

___________________________________________________________

 

[eagle1462010]

Option 3..................Destroy the sites and destroy the program or at least set it back a decade...............And destroy some of their ammo storage and weapons plants while we are at it................For pay back on killing our people.....................

Obama's so called deal is BS..............it will not solve a thing..............Just like Clinton did with North Korea..........

They make a deal and then hold up a piece of paper and say "SEE IT'S OVER".............

What a bunch of dumb asses.

 

[nat4900]

Obama's so called deal is BS..............it will not solve a thing..............Just like Clinton did with North Korea..........

Perhaps a calendar might help (but I doubt it) Check when N. Korea got nukes and you too would see that papa Bush-baby was then in charge.

 

[MACAULAY]

Obama's so called deal is BS..............it will not solve a thing..............Just like Clinton did with North Korea..........

Perhaps a calendar might help (but I doubt it) Check when N. Korea got nukes and you too would see that papa Bush-baby was then in charge.

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

Precisely the kind of blame Obama hopes to lay at the feet of his successor. That is his whole strategy with the current farsical negotiations. I really don't know why everybody on the planet can't see it. Willing blindness is the only guess. Maybe cowardice.

 

[OKTexas]

We all know (or should know) that every action (or non-action) has consequences. So, one more time on the opposing views regarding this deal:

Action 1: Increase sanctions
Consequence 1: At this point, sanctions have had limited impact on Iran's nuclear plans; Most likely, Russia and China (and perhaps even France) will pick up the slack, and Iran angered by such increases, will simply go on doing what that country has done for the last decade.

Action (non-action) 2: Do Nothing
Consequence 2: Iran will simply proceed with her plans regarding nukes, and the increased isolation will be seen by the average Iranian as further reasons to NOT join the west.

Action 3: Bomb the heck of Iran's nuclear sites....
Consequence 3: Bombing another country is NOT without risks; Israel's bombing of Syria and Iraq's sites increased the proxy war against Israel and fanned the hatred. Were the U.S. bomb Iran, hate toward us would further intensify, AND our allies would justifiably view us as, once again, the aggressors......any chances of diplomacy would be dead.....and such actions would simply postpone Iran's nuclear arsenal by (estimated) two to three years.

Action 4: Adherence to the Obama plan
Consequence 4: If Iran cheats (as claimed by virtually ALL right wingers,) at the very least, we could postpone the eventuality of Iran's nukes by an (estimated) two to three years..CONVERSELY, if Iran does not cheat, there would be a strong possibility that the more moderate factions within Iran would sway public opinion toward both joining the West and abandoning this lust for nukes.

Given this type of rationale, what would you ....objectively.....advise what our government's actions should be?

Guess you missed your dear leaders speech today, he said Iran will never be more than 1 year from nuke and in the 13th through the 15th years the break out time will be near zero. And there is no reason to bomb their processing sites, all we need do is take out the power plants that service them. No power, no processing and no threat of contamination. We see them bringing in parts to build new power plants, we take them out, really not that hard or costly. All the while we increase sanctions and starve their economy until they agree to destroy all processing capabilities.

BTW it's Iran who is the major funder of Hamas, Syria and Iraq are more facilitators than funders.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Perhaps a calendar might help (but I doubt it) Check when N. Korea got nukes and you too would see that papa Bush-baby was then in charge.

Then you should know, by that example, how well these nuclear deals work out in the end. They don't. For example, North Korea tested a 2.3 kiloton nuke underground in 2009 and a 7.7 kiloton nuke in 2013. Both of these tests happened under Obama's watch. Not only that, last April South Korea reported that North Korea could be planning another test. These deals don't work.

All these sanctions on North Korea, yet they still managed to get their hands on enough material to detonate a nuclear weapon.

This deal is a farce. I hope Congress goes through on its promise to override Obama. Because I sure as hell know Obama has zero idea what he's doing.

 

[nat4900]

Precisely the kind of blame Obama hopes to lay at the feet of his successor. That is his whole strategy with the current farsical negotiations. I really don't know why everybody on the planet can't see it. Willing blindness is the only guess. Maybe cowardice.

Oh go **** yourself, ".....maybe cowardice".....It doesn't take ANY courage to send someone else's kids to kill or die (your ilk should know that since you don;t have any conscience but you stull thump a bible...) Just ask Georgie boy if it take any courage to invade another country and watch 4000 caskets come home.

Go on bomb Iran and see what happens.....

 

[nat4900]

This deal is a farce. I hope Congress goes through on its promise to override Obama. Because I sure as hell know Obama has zero idea what he's doing.

Fine play your ******* game that congress overrides veto and then the deal can be shoved up your collective right wing asses.....and you're right back where you first started....Then what, assholes????
Do you think Iran will cower because right wingers in congress veto the deal?

Want another war???? Go for it !!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Obama's so called deal is BS..............it will not solve a thing..............Just like Clinton did with North Korea..........

Perhaps a calendar might help (but I doubt it) Check when N. Korea got nukes and you too would see that papa Bush-baby was then in charge.

By the way, the Clinton Administration struck the "Agreed Framework" deal with North Korea. But by 2003, it was clear North Korea had no intentions of sticking to it. That was Clinton's failure, not Bush's.

 

[nat4900]

Guess you missed your dear leaders speech today, he said Iran will never be more than 1 year from nuke and in the 13th through the 15th years the break out time will be near zero. And there is no reason to bomb their processing sites, all we need do is take out the power plants that service them. No power, no processing and no threat of contamination. We see them bringing in parts to build new power plants, we take them out, really not that hard or costly. All the while we increase sanctions and starve their economy until they agree to destroy all processing capabilities.

Write a nice letter to YOUR leader Netanyahu and tell him all about your plan......Israel wants to bomb....Go for it ..and see what happens next,