Why is Obama pursuing an agreement with Iran?
 

It is stated in the religion of those in Iran to not have or honoe agreements with infidels (that's us) as they are inferior. And if there is an agreement they feel no obligation to honor it.

Plus the fact they are involved in one way or another with most of the terrorism in the area and around the world.

They are sworn to kill infidels (that would be us again).

In the face of the experts who state there is more to fear from Iran than there is from ISIS.

Is his diretion to Kerry like it was to Pelosi when she was whipping the team to get the ACA passed....he said to get something approved by (whatever date). Something?

Why is Obama pursuing this course? To add to his legacy which only he has an eye toward.

Since the man is a proven liar and 100% not transparent in his dealings...who knows.

I think it might have something to do with Allah Akbar

How about to prevent all out nuclear war with Iran?

Please reread post #! carefully. Iran will do what Iran WANTS to do - a treaty, a promise means NOTHING to them.

Obama is aiding and abetting his muslim brothers so that they can speed up the overtake of this country. Plain and simple!!

The Tri-County Tea Party and The Villages KKK woke up early today, I see.

Along with the gang of six

That would be the villages tea party. They are too radical for the tri county tea party.

There is definitely a group of posters that would be considered a one trick pony. Attack Obama in the most insulting and name calling way. It's a schoolyard mentality that denotes a low skill level in communication. In truth, I almost enjoy the lambasters for their inane comments. It's kind of like this guy...

Attachment 49270

Well the reverse is also sadly true where, no matter how idiotic the position Obama takes, supporters like you will always defend him.

Why don't you summarize the case for Obama's "deal" with Iran in crisp terms, and further explain why you are ok with Iran getting a nuke in ten years or less.

This sounds eerily similar to the lead up to the Iraq war based on lies about weapons of mass destruction that would destroy the US. Over a decade later, trillions of dollars in debt, hundreds of thousands killed, Saddam Hussein is gone replaced by ISIS. If that was the mission, you could say 'mission accomplished'.

Remember John McCain's little ditty during the 2008 campaign...bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Thank goodness he lost the election.

:bowdown: :boxing2:

Let me help you state your case on a Dale Carnegie handbook in an abbreviated way:

"Wouldn't you agree that Obama’s deal with Iran would lead to a nuclear Iran?" ..............................
"Based on your input I have a solution you may like."

That's how you sell it.

First of all, in order to argue intelligently, you need to start by getting your basic facts straight.

For several years after the surge Iraq was relatively peaceful. Then, in 2011 and against the advice of his generals, Obama pulled out all US troops. He did this for political purposes. He created a power vacuum and ISIS filled it. In the world of high strategy where I used to work, we had an elegant term for leaders who made bad decisions like that ... to wit, we identied them as "dumbass"

Let me say it another way so that its unambigous for you -- there was no ISIS until Obama's incompetence enabled it to come into being. Do you understand that at all? Would you like to argue it?

In sum Barack Obama is, metaphorically speaking, the Father of ISIS

I'm not sayin', but I'm just sayin'... what if the "master plan" entailed setting in motion a set of events whereby Israel's dangerous neighbors all descended into conflict killing each other without Israel so much as firing a shot? If that were in fact the case it would be BRILLIANT.

Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya... all of these nations are participating in armed conflict, with some taking the job of killing more seriously than others. Combined, there are many hundreds of thousands of young Islamic fighters pushing up the daisies. From a human carnage standpoint, it's a tragedy, but I'm not personally shedding any tears. A few more years of this and the herd of religious nut jobs should really be thinned out.

Let's not forget the deteriorating economies of many of these countries and the added benefit of lower oil prices as they open the spigots to get more money to buy more US-made weapons. (It's just a variation on the "cycle of life".) Of course when nukes come along, this multi-year affair can all be handled in a few minutes. :loco:

:bigbow:

Congrats. you have posted the most inaccurate false and biased brief summary of Iraq I have ever read. Please post for me your data on the peaceful number of Sunni/Shia deaths after the surge, on the behavior of the Malaki administration, on the position of the Kurds, and on the frequency of car bombs, human bombs, mosque bombs, during that peaceful period. And compare please to the number of similar events say in 2001 or 2002 before Bush/Chaney decided to liberate Iraq at nearly no cost to the citizens of this country. And you think Obama destabilized the region by fulfilling a campaign promise to get us out of that quagmire.

Why has there been NO attempt by the Obama supporters to state why what he is doing negotiationg with Iran is OK?

I have yet to EVER have a direct question be answered.
Change the subject yes...most of the time.
Attack what was being asked...much of the time.
Turn the question around to sound not even remotely like waht was asked...SOP.

:sigh:

On Sept. 7, 2002, [Judith Miller] and fellow New York Times reporter Michael Gordon reported that Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb." As proof, she cited unnamed "American intelligence experts" and unnamed "Bush administration officials." Subsequently, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, and Donald Rumsfeld all pointed to Miller’s story as justification for war. On April 22, 2003, she told PBS’s Newshour that WMD had already been found in Iraq: "Well, I think they found something more than a ’smoking gun.’"
---Think Progress




"Saddam Hussein's baby powder program-
related activities must be stopped!"

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof---the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."
---George W. Bush (10/7/02)
"We’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies." "We will win this conflict. We will win it easily."
---John McCain (9/29/02 and 1/22/03)

"My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
---Colin Powell, United Nations Speech (2/5/03)

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." ... "My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."
---Dick Cheney (8/28/02) and (3/16/03)


George W. Bush
"Those WMDs must be around
here somewhere. HehHehHeh..."

"[T]he area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
---Donald Rumsfeld (3/30/03)
"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like [Tom] Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."
---Joe Scarborough (4/10/03)

The cafeteria menus in the three House office buildings changed the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries," in a culinary rebuke of France stemming from anger over the country's refusal to support the U.S. position on Iraq.'
---CNN (3/12/03)

Ted Koppel: [Y]ou’re not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion?
Andrew Natsios [Agency for International Development]: Well, in terms of the American taxpayer's contribution, I do. This is it for the U.S.
---Nightline (4/23/03)

How about a conclusion or a point being made. C'mon get out here on a limb with the rest of us.

Because it is a negotiation. Did Reagan announce the details of his negotiation for the reduction of nuclear weapons? Was the press kept aware of what Roosevelt and Stalin were discussing? Was Carter giving a blow by blow to you when he got Sadat and Rabin together? Are Boehner and Gohmert posting their trade offs? You want a broad outline of the goals, try google. You want details on how many centrifuges, what the inspection rules might be, what Iran gets, what Europe gets, what we get.. you'll not get those details now. You think Obama and Kerry are hiding it from YOU? Must also be all those other pesky Socialist Muslim Atheist Commie countries that are also part of these discussions

None of the above was stated or asked for in the original post.
What was asked for was:
why is it OK with you that Obama is negotiating with the world's largest terrorist organization, Iran?
Try to respond for once without derogatory name calling. It belittles and discredits others in your party.

You still don't get, or refuse to admit the key factual point ... Obama created ISIS by prematurly and recklessly withdrawing U.S. troops. Your attempts at obfuscation and changing the subject are irrelevant

She can't reply directly or honestly because she'd then have to defend what she knows is indefensible .... ie the (pathetic) "deal" ends up allowing Iran to have nukes

This is literally suicidal to the U.S. and our kids/grandkids. One would think that would be enough to not support Obama in at least this one instance. But sadly the Obamabots support him no matter what

This deranged thinking by liberal lefties is akin to a modern day Jonestown cult

Manifest Incompetence
 

Dear Guests: The old saw,that the past is prologue to the future applies twofold here.

First Iran has since the early the ouster of the Shah of Iran been an enemy of America and has always hated Israel. There has been nothing since this event that has altered their perspective and attitudes, in fact that have only become more radical and more involved in the disruption in the middle east.

Second Obama's profile since before taking oath has been one of deception incompetence, indecision, arrogance and childish behavior. He has a habit that once he through with using you for his gain he throws under the bus. He holds his opponents to THEIR demands. He traded Bergdahl for five of the most dangerous terrorist in the world and called it a great thing to do by leaving no man behind. Except this guy went AWOL/deserted to the enemy. The five terrorist are now reported back in Afghanistan and Bergdahl went AWOL again as no one can find him. and we still haven't learned what the military investigation determined was his status when 4 soldiers died to hunt for his return

This is just plain manifest incompetence and anyone defending Obama and his gang of thugs is either complicit by acceptance or just not capable of understanding the implications of Obama's actions

see highlight above.

You
 

Lost..... Twice.....get over it.... So many lies. You must stay awake at night dreaming this garbage up!

Such venom toward your President! If you do not like his policies, programs, or results - just don't vote for Obama again. :rant-rave:

They do. They also make it up at their Tea Party meetings. The idiot with the newest and most unbelievable lie about the President wins a new white sheet.

Dear Guest: I am afraid that this forum is too much for you. I believe you would do much better by responding to the "Just for Fun"forum

Personal Best Regards:

This must be the longest eight years of their lives, and they have eight more years of democratic rule staring them in the face.

:1rotfl:

:blahblahblah:

:barf:

All you guys seem to do is reflexively defend Obama -- no matter what policy he advocates,even if suicidal for every American (ie allowing Iran to get nukes)

Honestly, don't you see the longer term danger to all of us from a nuclear armed Iran?? As but one example, are you aware the Iranian military has long written about an EMP attack on America? Are you really either oblivious towards, or unconcerned by nuclear jihad??

Please ... forego the sniping and try to respond in this instance to the substance

Pres. Obama is looking for a non violent way to stop Iran from making a nuclear weapon. I support him in doing that.

Ok, with all due respect, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

Obama's deal allows Iran to have nukes in ten years, or sooner if they cheat (which they will)

So, the question for you is, are you ok with Iran getting nukes??

Just
 

More tea party made up garbage. You win the white
sheet this week.

You've got a seriously BAD racist personality. Every post you make references KKK or some nonsense. What's wrong with you? Are you that infantile?

Nobody wants Iran getting nukes, but what other options are there besides negotiations and inspections? There are several other countries involved in these negotiations, not just the US. Nobody knows what the final 'deal' will be, since there is no deal at this time.

Actually you win the award, hands down, for the most stunning display of willful ignorance yet seen on this forum