Darius11 12 #26 March 4, 2015 Whenever Netanyahu's start criticizing any country i want to tell him this. you do realize Israel has not only threatened countries in the region repeatedly,but has also acted, is currently occupying/expanding illegal stolen land. BTW this is not according to all the Jew haters but according to the UN and international law. you do know that Israel has signed no nuclear deal EVER and has nuclear weapons right? honestly he wasn't what really was getting to me at all douchebags gonna douch ? he was......as expected. However embarrassed for the republicans and dems who supported this bull shit. How dare you bring this an outsider a politicized one to show the world you hate your president. you never bring a stranger to family dispute. unfortunately now this sets precedents. i like to think that the dems would have more class to not do such a move (to a future republican president) but they wont. I really did not like that at all. Keep that shit in houseI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stumpy 256 #27 March 4, 2015 Darius11 However embarrassed for the republicans and dems who supported this bull shit. How dare you bring this an outsider a politicized one to show the world you hate your president. Agree.Never try to eat more than you can lift Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #28 March 4, 2015 Stumpy*** However embarrassed for the republicans and dems who supported this bull shit. How dare you bring this an outsider a politicized one to show the world you hate your president. Agree. While that certainly is a possibility Barry has had some less than stellar performances in the foreign policy arena. If your pitcher's tossing grapefruit you bring in the reliever.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #29 March 4, 2015 Quoteyou never bring a stranger to family dispute. unfortunately now this sets precedents. i like to think that the dems would have more class to not do such a move (to a future republican president) but they wont. I really did not like that at all. Keep that shit in house Hmmmm...perhaps it's more like two parents (R's & D's) fighting over how to raise the kid (Israel) and the kid doesn't like it and raises their voice. THIS IS POLICY TOWARD ISRAEL THE US IS FORMULATING not the other way around. You can argue and whine about how Israel is doing this that and the other. Remember this...Israel and by close extension, the Jews live by two words (and frankly I don't blame them at all): "NEVER AGAIN." And when a people, any people have that level of resolve and have a long and credible history of demonstrating that resolve, I'd think more than twice about tangling with them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kadde 0 #30 March 4, 2015 BillyVanceI guess you could say they seem to have forgotten that Iran and its leaders have repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel. So with that in mind, I can understand Bibi's points where he is coming from. The very last thing we need is some radical islamic punk ass group getting their hands on a nuke weapon. However, Iran is mostly if not all Shiite muslims and their military is helping the fight against the Sunni ISIS forces so... I wouldn't trust anybody in the middle east anyhow, but I do support Israel's right to exist and defend itself. I don't always agree with everything they do though. I might be going off-topic but i just got stuck on your view of ISIS... You do realize that most of the Kurds (who are the ones fighting ISIS right now) are in fact Sunni (90% of them). The ISIS agenda cannot be equalized with Sunni muslims trying to wipe out Shiites. In reality, it has very little to do with Shiites and Sunnis. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #31 March 4, 2015 QuoteFirst, Iran is signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It has the right under the treaty to develop peaceful nuclear power. Second, the US is signatory Israel of course is NOT a signatory...interestingly enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #32 March 4, 2015 airdvrYou really trust Iran? A deal with them isn't worth the ink used to write it. When did we start thinking it was OK to negotiate with terrorists? Hmmm. Who armed Osama bin Laden in the 1980s? Who dealt (illegally) with and sold arms to Iran in the 1980s? Who provided arms and money to the Contras? Who looked the other way when the IRA raised money and got weapons in the USA? Oh, that would be US.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #33 March 4, 2015 Always shake my head when Americans say "We don't negotiate with terrorists". They have either watched a little too much hollywood, or are just extremely naive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #34 March 4, 2015 SkyDekkerAlways shake my head when Americans say "We don't negotiate with terrorists". They have either watched a little too much hollywood, or are just extremely naive. Yep. And I think they also forget that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin were terrorists. The US certainly dealt with them.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
grimmie 173 #35 March 4, 2015 I always wonder what a modern Iran would look like if the CIA hadn't wrecked their government and took 40% of their oil in the 50's, and installed the Shah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #36 March 4, 2015 kallend***Always shake my head when Americans say "We don't negotiate with terrorists". They have either watched a little too much hollywood, or are just extremely naive. Yep. And I think they also forget that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin were terrorists. The US certainly dealt with them. Yeah. I'm pretty sure (and of course you know this, semantic silliness aside) that the expression (faulty though it may be) refers to dealing those who are terrorists in the present tense, not to dealing with those who were prime ministers when dealt-with, who had been terrorists against British colonial imperialism some decades earlier. I realize you bear no small amount of enmity for the terrorism wrought by the Irish, or the Indians, or the pre-Israeli Jewish Palestinians, etc. against exploitative British imperialist occupiers, but completeness of factual and historical context is what it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #37 March 4, 2015 kallend***You really trust Iran? A deal with them isn't worth the ink used to write it. When did we start thinking it was OK to negotiate with terrorists? Hmmm. Who armed Osama bin Laden in the 1980s? Who dealt (illegally) with and sold arms to Iran in the 1980s? Who provided arms and money to the Contras? Who looked the other way when the IRA raised money and got weapons in the USA? Oh, that would be US. And who illegally transported opponents of Ghaddaffi, a known sponsor of terrorism and enemy of the US, to Libya to be tortured in exchange for a share of any intelligence?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 268 #38 March 4, 2015 BoomerdogQuoteAdditionally, how about the world community offering to send experts from other countries that use civil nuclear power to help Iran build their plants? Why should they want to do all that work to develop and distribute it (re-inventing the wheel, so to speak)? Put the ball in Iran's court to accept or decline the assistance. If they're really trying to refine to weapons-grade, not just civil power grade, I'd love to hear their reasoning for declining the help (from neutral countries, of course -- I'm quite certain they'd be able to decline an offer from US nuclear technicians!) It's a nice thought and I'm sure you offer it in good faith and well thought through and OBTW, I'm not falsely or immodestly patronizing your comments. But even under the conditions you describe would not guarantee that Iran would halt their intent to develop nuclear weapons. No, but it would put dozens, if not hundreds, of international nuclear experts on the ground. Kind of hard to hide it then. (That's why they would decline an offer of help -- to hide their "true" intent)See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #39 March 4, 2015 It's NOT nuclear experts you want...it's nuclear inspectors and a rigid...VERY VERY RIGID chain of custody to account for ALL of the nuclear fuel i.e. uranium to be used for power generation then the waste taken elsewhere. The Iranians should never be able to handle any fissile material. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 186 #40 March 4, 2015 Andy9o8******Always shake my head when Americans say "We don't negotiate with terrorists". They have either watched a little too much hollywood, or are just extremely naive. Yep. And I think they also forget that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin were terrorists. The US certainly dealt with them. Yeah. I'm pretty sure (and of course you know this, semantic silliness aside) that the expression (faulty though it may be) refers to dealing those who are terrorists in the present tense, not to dealing with those who were prime ministers when dealt-with, who had been terrorists against British colonial imperialism some decades earlier. I realize you bear no small amount of enmity for the terrorism wrought by the Irish, or the Indians, or the pre-Israeli Jewish Palestinians, etc. against exploitative British imperialist occupiers, but completeness of factual and historical context is what it is. Any argument to the contrary is anti semantic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #41 March 4, 2015 SkyDekker Always shake my head when Americans say "We don't negotiate with terrorists". They have either watched a little too much hollywood, or are just extremely naive. One man's terrorist... And, anything someone does that gets Nancy's panties in a bunch means we're on the right track.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #42 March 4, 2015 Andy9o8******Always shake my head when Americans say "We don't negotiate with terrorists". They have either watched a little too much hollywood, or are just extremely naive. Yep. And I think they also forget that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin were terrorists. The US certainly dealt with them. Yeah. I'm pretty sure (and of course you know this, semantic silliness aside) that the expression (faulty though it may be) refers to dealing those who are terrorists in the present tense, not to dealing with those who were prime ministers when dealt-with, who had been terrorists against British colonial imperialism some decades earlier. I realize you bear no small amount of enmity for the terrorism wrought by the Irish, or the Indians, or the pre-Israeli Jewish Palestinians, etc. against exploitative British imperialist occupiers, but completeness of factual and historical context is what it is. Just because someone becomes a prime minister or president doesn't bring back the innocent civilians they killed in the past tense.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TriGirl 268 #43 March 4, 2015 BoomerdogIt's NOT nuclear experts you want...it's nuclear inspectors and a rigid...VERY VERY RIGID chain of custody to account for ALL of the nuclear fuel i.e. uranium to be used for power generation then the waste taken elsewhere. The Iranians should never be able to handle any fissile material. But since they won't LET nuclear inspectors in, and breaking contact (with sanctions) hasn't worked, my idea is another option. They claim they only want to develop technology for civilian power purposes, so they can sell more of their oil. They say it's a win-win for their economy and their population. The ball is now in our court (international community, particularly those who don't believe them) to prove Iran wants to do something different. What have we done on that front? Simply called them liars and cut them off (yeah, I know we have more than just our "gut," but I'm keeping this simple). Their argument sounds reasonable to many other countries, and we can't convince anyone else Iran is doing anything different. So, let's call them on it. This way, they would be proving their intent. If they say, "oh, thanks! we would appreciate the help," then we look reasonable (of course, there would be conditions -- again, this is the simplified version). However, if Iran's reply is, "ah... well... no, thanks -- we'll just keep doing all this on our own," the world will be much more skeptical of their true intent. It goes to Iran's credibility. Of course, this all should have been done decades ago -- at this point, that course of action wouldn't work.See the upside, and always wear your parachute! -- Christopher Titus Shut Up & Jump! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 197 #44 March 5, 2015 You go ahead and trust them all you want. In December, the Iranian defense minister declared that Iran is now the fourth largest missile power in the world after the United States, Russia and China. In August 2012, Saudi Aramco came under a massive cyber attack that left a great number of the company’s computers destroyed. That was presumed to be an Iranian retaliation for a similar attack on Iran’s oil industry at hands of Iran’s foes, most likely the United States or Israel. Thanks to its Arab character, Hezbollah is Tehran’s preferred instrument for its public relations aimed at the Arab street. When Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah castigates the House of Saud and its policies, it no doubt resonates to a greater extent with ordinary Arabs than if a Persian-speaker made the same charges. Iran has long threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil shipments pass. http://nationalinterest.org/feature/4-iranian-threats-terrorize-saudi-arabia-12310Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #45 March 5, 2015 kallend*********Always shake my head when Americans say "We don't negotiate with terrorists". They have either watched a little too much hollywood, or are just extremely naive. Yep. And I think they also forget that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin were terrorists. The US certainly dealt with them. Yeah. I'm pretty sure (and of course you know this, semantic silliness aside) that the expression (faulty though it may be) refers to dealing those who are terrorists in the present tense, not to dealing with those who were prime ministers when dealt-with, who had been terrorists against British colonial imperialism some decades earlier. I realize you bear no small amount of enmity for the terrorism wrought by the Irish, or the Indians, or the pre-Israeli Jewish Palestinians, etc. against exploitative British imperialist occupiers, but completeness of factual and historical context is what it is. Just because someone becomes a prime minister or president doesn't bring back the innocent civilians they killed in the past tense. To that way of thinking, all the British monarchs and/or prime ministers by whose authorizations innocent indigenous citizens under colonial rule were killed by the British military, not infrequently en masse, should have swung from the yardarm, rather than been permitted to stay in office and expire naturally in their own beds. And that would have been present tense. And yet, other nations' "respectable" governments continued to deal with them, didn't they? I'm sure the families of murdered Irish, Indians, Boers.. the list goes on... would have considered those PMs to be terrorists never to be dealt with again. That aside, you're still twiddling with semantics and deflection. Not my game. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #46 March 5, 2015 Look. It's quite simple. The President doesn't see Iranian nukes as a threat to the safety of the world. The Keystone XL is a threat to the world and this was stopped. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BillyVance 34 #47 March 5, 2015 "Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #48 March 5, 2015 Andy9o8 That aside, you're still twiddling with semantics and deflection. Not my game. Then why are you playing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #49 March 5, 2015 kallend *** That aside, you're still twiddling with semantics and deflection. Not my game. Then why are you playing? I only play with myself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #50 March 5, 2015 Andy9o8 ****** That aside, you're still twiddling with semantics and deflection. Not my game. Then why are you playing? I only play with myself. Self Semantics? How redundant.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
