Democrats - bold enough to get away with anything and everything without consequences.

[WarriorAngel]

With respect, wouldn't this thread receive more open responses were it not in a denominationally exclusive political venue? Such as, American Politics? The topic isn't specifically Catholic related.

In OBOB we have different threads on the same subject with somewhat new or different contexts.

 

[JustOneWay]

Missiles are part of Nukes.
Although they should have had to deal with it [Ollie and Bush] - the nukes couldnt be built anyway.
SO it was like letting them have milk without a glass.

No, it was more like trading with a sworn enemy of the United States, which is treason.


Treason is treason....

unless we are employing a double standard.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

In OBOB we have different threads on the same subject with somewhat new or different contexts.

Understood. My meaning concerned the other forums. Posting this in American politics for instance. Being there's a moderator note that it was moved to this forum from elsewhere, I would wonder if this same subject could be opened in a different forum and not violate a rule that prohibits multiple threads on the same exact subject. That was my point.

 

[ebia]

And yet that money for you-know-what that you referred to, did actually go to directly target American's at home.

Yep. If we were really talking about real risk to Americans, we'd be talking about Saudi, not Iran. Which shows what the red herring is.

ould a government do if it didn't have someone to protect its citizens from?

Precisely why the Iranian govt needs Israel and America as enemies: not to actually attack them, but to maintain its power base.

 

[WarriorAngel]

Understood. My meaning concerned the other forums. Posting this in American politics for instance. Being there's a moderator note that it was moved to this forum from elsewhere, I would wonder if this same subject could be opened in a different forum and not violate a rule that prohibits multiple threads on the same exact subject. That was my point.

Open one.
I made one post for OBOB - so i didnt multiple post. BUT if you like the discussion you are another member - you can post one.

 

[WarriorAngel]

No, it was more like trading with a sworn enemy of the United States, which is treason.


Treason is treason....

unless we are employing a double standard.

Many democrats would be in big trouble if ppl got what they deserved - republicans too.
As i said they are all chummy and grease each others palms.

 

[ebia]

Since the main talking point for this deal seems to be "at least it's better than nuclear war" (which is the faintest praise imaginable),



I wonder if its supporters could fill me in on the following:

Is there any part of the deal as it stands, which if Iran had not agreed to it, you would not support the deal?

That is, we caved on the majority of what we wanted and got very little. But of that little that remains, is there anything that you would not be willing to see us cave on?

If Iran keeps it they won't be building Nukes.
If they don't keep it we find out quickly.

Those seem to be the two requirements.

 

[Lazy_Proverb]

Open one.
I made one post for OBOB - so i didnt multiple post. BUT if you like the discussion you are another member - you can post one.

Thanks for the tip.

 

[classicalhero]

There's another Dem who thinks the only alternative is war. SMH
I have not seen ONE opponent of this deal suggest we go bomb Iran, zero. I've seen plenty of democrats offer war as the only alternative. They all can't be that stupid, can they?

The problem is that this deal means war is inevitable. There is now way the Arabs are going to allow a nuclear Iran.

 

[ebia]

The problem is that this deal means war is inevitable. There is now way the Arabs are going to allow a nuclear Iran.

Iran has agreed to stop building nukes, so Arabs (which?), who didn't go to war when they were building nukes, are going to go to war to stop them building nukes?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Iran has agreed to stop building nukes.......

That's so adorable.

 

[MikeK]

There's another Dem who thinks the only alternative is war. SMH
I have not seen ONE opponent of this deal suggest we go bomb Iran, zero. I've seen plenty of democrats offer war as the only alternative. They all can't be that stupid, can they?

There have been at least two Republican posters (out of a population of perhaps 15 regular Republican posters) in OBOB who have called for a ground war in Iran. You should consider paying closer attention.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

There have been at least two Republican posters (out of a population of perhaps 15 regular Republican posters) in OBOB who have called for a ground war in Iran. You should consider paying closer attention.

And tell me, did these alleged republicans use the phrase "the only alternative to the deal is war?" It's not worth my time to go research it, but I doubt it. Paying attention would be good.

 

[classicalhero]

Iran has agreed to stop building nukes, so Arabs (which?), who didn't go to war when they were building nukes, are going to go to war to stop them building nukes?

You mean Iran is stopping something they should never had started in the first place, but yet are being rewarded with this agreement to stop something they had not right to be going after? The Arabs had no reason to attack while the sanctions were in place since they had an effect of limiting Iran's economy and the damage it could do, but now with them lifted they are far more dangerous. Making an already dangerous place more dangerous.

 

[ebia]

That's so adorable.

Maybe they'll keep their side, maybe they won't. If they don't, the sanctions don't get lifted or come back into force.

Nothing enables, facilitates or encourages anything they weren't already doing wrt building nukes.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

LOL except the release of their assets.
Some people are so gullible.

 

[ebia]

You mean Iran is stopping something they should never had started in the first place, but yet are being rewarded with this agreement to stop something they had not right to be going after?

They aren't being rewarded. Sanctions were imposed for building towards nukes; stop building the nukes and the sanctions get lifted.

The Arabs had no reason to attack while the sanctions were in place since they had an effect of limiting Iran's economy and the damage it could do, but now with them lifted they are far more dangerous. Making an already dangerous place more dangerous.

Make up your mind; before you said Arabs would attack because of building nukes. But they were building nukes and nobody attacked. If the deal goes into practice they stop building nukes.

You simply aren't presenting a coherent logic m

 

[MikeK]

You mean Iran is stopping something they should never had started in the first place?

Which countries should pursue weapons of mass destruction and which should not? Which countries that have elected to pursue WMD programs should we cease all trade with and which are okay to trade with and why?

 

[classicalhero]

Which countries should pursue weapons of mass destruction and which should not? Which countries that have elected to pursue WMD programs should we cease all trade with and which are okay to trade with and why?

Wel there is a trety called the Nuclear Non Proliferation treaty, which Iran signed, yet they violated that.

They aren't being rewarded. Sanctions were imposed for building towards nukes; stop building the nukes and the sanctions get lifted.

Yet we can only check the installations after 24 should Iran protest. That is quite simply laughable

Make up your mind; before you said Arabs would attack because of building nukes. But they were building nukes and nobody attacked. If the deal goes into practice they stop building nukes.

You simply aren't presenting a coherent logic m

The sanctions were stopping them since I(ran was no threat while they were under economic sanctions. Now they aren't and they get an immediate 150 billion dollar boost to their economy. Who know how many terror organisations around the world are waiting to get thei hands os some of the cash. The idea that the sanctions will go back immediately is a joke. http://opiniojuris.org/2015/07/14/t...-in-the-iran-deal-have-a-pretty-big-loophole/

Since there is likely to be a “gold rush” of business rushing to sign deals with Iran upon lifting of sanctions, this exception might prove a pretty big hole in the “snapped-back” sanctions. The expected Chinese and Russian deals with Iran for arms sales and oil purchases could survive any snapback, even if Iran was caught cheating.

So even if “snapback” works legally, it would have pretty limited impact practically.Or am I missing something?

 

[topcare]

Democrats - bold enough to get away with anything and everything without consequences.

Yep and the good guys get shafted while the country goes to heck because of liberals.