Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Straw Man on May 08, 2018, 11:27:01 AM
-
This is a good thing right
Now Iran can go back to ramping up their nuclear weapons program
-
I have no idea if it is a good or bad thing. Depends on who you listen to I suppose. I've read from both sides, one saying it is verifiable and they have been cooperating and it reduces the chances.. the other side says it expires so what's the point? I think I'll stay out of this one because I don't have access to unbiased information
-
I have no idea if it is a good or bad thing. Depends on who you listen to I suppose. I've read from both sides, one saying it is verifiable and they have been cooperating and it reduces the chances.. the other side says it expires so what's the point? I think I'll stay out of this one because I don't have access to unbiased information
the point might be would you rather delay them from getting nuke for 10+ years (which give you time to continue working toward non-proliferation) or would you rather just say fuck it, if it's going to expire in ten years we might as well just let get back to work on getting a nuke right now
short summary here: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655
Also, Mike Pompeo testified last month that he has seen no evidence that Iran is not in compliance with the JCPOA so kind of hard to understand what justification the US has for unilaterally reneging from a deal that we signed with 5 other countries.
This obviously sets a very bad precedent for any future negotiations with any adversary or even allies.
-
It makes absolute sense for a world power in withdrawl mode
That's 100% true and you can add Trans Pacific Partnership and probably NAFTA to this along with the trade war with China. Add the Paris Climate accord as well
China is thrilled we're ceding power to them in TPP and our talks with China on our self inflicted trade war ended last week with no deal and no further talks scheduled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/business/china-us-trade-talks.html
Per Trump - all deals suck and nobody know them all better than him ...believe me (which is contrary to reports that he hasn't got a fucking clue about almost everything including DACA and how the Post Office works)
-
arguments of mass seduction
Seems the same case for Invading Iraq is being prepared for invading Iran - some of the previous players are back in power
Iran is going to have to do their own version of 9-11 (or Trump team is going to have to coordinate with whoever Bush/Cheney used to pull off a false flag)
I don't see any appetite in this country, Congress or our allies (other than Israel) for invading Iran
-
This is a good thing right
Now Iran can go back to ramping up their nuclear weapons program
They are going to enrich uranium with or without a treaty. You are a special kind of stupid aren't you???
-
That's 100% true and you can add Trans Pacific Partnership and probably NAFTA to this along with the trade war with China. Add the Paris Climate accord as well
China is thrilled we're ceding power to them in TPP and our talks with China on our self inflicted trade war ended last week with no deal and no further talks scheduled.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/business/china-us-trade-talks.html
Per Trump - all deals suck and nobody know them all better than him ...believe me (which is contrary to reports that he hasn't got a fucking clue about almost everything including DACA and how the Post Office works)
So the Democrat Party is now wanting to brand themselves as The Party of TPP ;D :D
Good luck ever winning back legislative power by pushing that message to your base.
-
They are going to enrich uranium with or without a treaty. You are a special kind of stupid aren't you???
yeah to make reactor fuel but not to make weapons grade (or at least not nearly enough to make a weapon)
If you have some proof otherwise post here
-
I have no idea if it is a good or bad thing. Depends on who you listen to I suppose. I've read from both sides, one saying it is verifiable and they have been cooperating and it reduces the chances.. the other side says it expires so what's the point? I think I'll stay out of this one because I don't have access to unbiased information
First things first. If Obama negotiated it, it’s bad.
-
This is a good thing right
Now Iran can go back to ramping up their nuclear weapons program
In case you missed it (which I’m sure you did) educate yourself
-
I have no idea if it is a good or bad thing. Depends on who you listen to I suppose. I've read from both sides, one saying it is verifiable and they have been cooperating and it reduces the chances.. the other side says it expires so what's the point? I think I'll stay out of this one because I don't have access to unbiased information
x2
Didn't follow along close enough on this one so I'll abstain and watch how things unfold.
-
That's 100% true and you can add Trans Pacific Partnership and probably NAFTA to this along with the trade war with China. Add the Paris Climate accord as well
(https://media.wkbn.com/nxs-wkbntv-media-us-east-1/photo/2017/04/29/trump-promises-made-promises-kept_37905478_ver1.0_1280_720.jpg)
-
Good move by Trump. When ofagget kerry and the pos europeons are upset you know its a good decision.
-
Good move by Trump. When ofagget kerry and the pos europeons are upset you know its a good decision.
Amen!
-
great news. anything that pulls europe away from US foreign policy has to be welcomed
-
If the US keeps renaging on treaties and contracts it wont have to build a wall
-
;)
-
will we see $4 a gallon?
-
yeah to make reactor fuel but not to make weapons grade (or at least not nearly enough to make a weapon)
If you have some proof otherwise post here
You fucking moron....low grade uranium is more than enough to make a shitload of dirty bombs, commie bastard. Get your head out of your ass
-
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=645200.0;attach=760433;image)
;)
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=645200.0;attach=760440;image)
LOL ;D
-
You fucking moron....low grade uranium is more than enough to make a shitload of dirty bombs, commie bastard. Get your head out of your ass
LOL - well I guess we don't have to worry about that very slim chance now
Since Trump reneged on our promise Iran can just go back to creating much more lethal nuclear weapons
-
LOL - well I guess we don't have to worry about that very slim chance now
Since Trump reneged on our promise Iran can just go back to creating much more lethal nuclear weapons
Trump reneged on Obama's promise to Iran in order to keep his promise to American citizens.
-
Trump reneged on Obama's promise to Iran in order to keep his promise to American citizens.
reneged on the US promise not Obama's
and now the country is safer ?
-
reneged on the US promise not Obama's
and now the country is safer ?
Why should we be shackled with Obama's lies and treason to Iran?
F him - worthless scumbag and air hog. He is a stain and blight on this country in every way imaginable.
-
Trump reneged on Obama's promise to Iran in order to keep his promise to American citizens.
explain to me how no regulations is better than some? this has nothing to do with america, and everything to do with trump eating bibi's asshole
-
explain to me how no regulations is better than some?
Obama's failed deal was paying Iran billions of dollars. Europissants loved it because they wanted to do business w the ayatollah.
-
reneged on the US promise not Obama's
and now the country is safer ?
Who approved the deal?
-
Who approved the deal?
You must have have thought Obama was a king
Makes sense since you think Trump is now a king
-
Obama's failed deal was paying Iran billions of dollars. Europissants loved it because they wanted to do business w the ayatollah.
paying? you mean releasing frozen assets? the only paying done was the 40 billion iran paid boeing and aribus
-
Trump Was Right to Terminate the Iran Deal
The National Interest ^ | May 9, 2018 | Peter Brookes
Posted on 5/9/2018, 12:51:37 PM by Yo-Yo
The nuclear deal hasn’t reduced Tehran’s threat to international security and stability.
Highly controversial? Yes. But President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—also known as the Iran nuclear deal—was totally justifiable.
The deal was a well-intentioned effort by the Obama administration to limit Iran’s nuclear program—including its nuclear weapons program. But from the beginning, there were a number of reasonable concerns about the JCPOA.
How About That Sunset?
One of the most problematic provisions of the JCPOA is that it ends —or “sunsets”—after a specified period of time. At the fifteen-year mark of the agreement, Iran is no longer bound by the JCPOA.
The fact is that Tehran didn’t sign up to limit its nuclear-power (or weapons) program forever, but rather for just a period before being unbridled from the JCPOA. The JCPOA essentially kicks the can down the road to the next president after Trump.
Iran needs to sign up to limiting its nuclear activities in perpetuity.
Going Ballistic
Despite early calls for it to do so, the JCPOA doesn’t fully address Iran’s ballistic-missile program. Ballistic missiles are a common delivery system for weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.
Since Iran lacks a highly capable global—or regional—Navy or Air Force, Tehran would have to rely on its ballistic-missile arsenal to deliver nuclear weapons against any of its self-perceived enemies, including the United States.
The concerns over Iran’s missile program is evident in UN Security Council Resolutions 1929 and 2231, which attempt to limit Iran’s activities involving nuclear-capable ballistic missiles. Tehran has been accused of violating both resolutions.
Restrictions on ballistic missiles must be part of any new, comprehensive agreement.
Hide-and-Seek
Another troubling aspect of the JCPOA is that the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors aren’t allowed to check Iranian military sites. This is beyond comprehension.
Since nations would likely—even probably—develop nuclear weapons within the context of a military program, it is only reasonable to expect that inspectors would be able to visit military sites where illicit nuclear activities may be taking place.
Verification of compliance is essential. Iran historically hasn’t been fully forthcoming on its nuclear activities, including its weapons program—a fact recently buttressed by revelations uncovered by Israeli intelligence operations. Tehran may still be hiding unauthorized activities beyond the inspectors’ purview.
Comprehensive, no-notice inspections need to be part of any future agreement.
Bad Behavior
While admittedly not part of the JCPOA, Iran’s destabilizing activities abroad are deeply troubling. The nuclear deal arguably hasn’t appreciably reduced Iran’s threat to international security and stability.
But Iran has become more fully integrated into the international economy with the lifting of punitive economic sanctions under the JCPOA. This has provided it with revenue streams that are helping fund its aggressive adventurism in the region.
Iran is supporting the ruthless regime in Syria in the bloody civil war there. Tehran is also aiding the Houthis rebels in Yemen, allowing them to indiscriminately rain missiles down on Saudi Arabia.
Iran, of course, is an active state sponsor of terrorism, supporting the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas, according to the U.S. government. In Afghanistan, it’s supporting some elements of the Taliban, continuing to destabilize the long, war-torn country.
Bottom-line: Iran is very dangerous.
Despite the American withdrawal from the JCPOA, there is still time for diplomacy while the U.S. economic sanctions—that will go after a broad range of Iranian economic activities—are reimposed.
While a parade of European leaders made their way recently to Washington to preserve the JCPOA, these same senior officials could now engage in the diplomatic heavy lifting of getting new negotiations started, especially considering their less-hostile relations with Iran.
President Trump made the right call. For the sake of American and international security and interests, a new nuclear deal is needed—one that addresses, at a minimum, the glaring flaws in the current JCPOA.
The first step toward a new agreement is the recent U.S. withdrawal from the nuclear deal. The next thoughtful step is for Iran to willingly come back to the table to tackle these fundamental and reasonable concerns.
Dr. Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and a former deputy assistant secretary of defense.
-
You must have have thought Obama was a king
Makes sense since you think Trump is now a king
So he didn't have any power and was forced to allow the US to join? Just like he didn't know about any pallets of unmarked cash.
-
So he didn't have any power and was forced to allow the US to join? Just like he didn't know about any pallets of unmarked cash.
Obama represents the US just like Trump represents the US
both of them occupied the office of POTUS
they are not kings
Still haven't seen anyone who supports this move explain how it makes us safer
I'm sure there must be some way that allowing Iran to get nukes sooner rather than later somehow makes us all safer but I haven't quite figured it out yet.
-
Obama's failed deal was paying Iran billions of dollars. Europissants loved it because they wanted to do business w the ayatollah.
-
The Gay Muslim Hussien can now concentrate on building up ISIS again
-
Obama represents the US
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=440349.0;attach=483496)
-
I wonder why this deal wasn't a treaty instead?
-
Obama represents the US just like Trump represents the US
-
the US doesnt believe in treaties so why does it matter ?
Over your head.
-
The Gay Muslim Hussien can now concentrate on building up ISIS again
3 lies in 12 words.. might be a new record for you.
-
The Gay Muslim Hussien can now concentrate on building up ISIS again
3 lies in 12 words.. might be a new record for you.
Didn't Obama himself admit to experimenting with same sex relationships in the past?
-
3 lies in 12 words.. might be a new record for you.
Didn't Obama himself admit to experimenting with same sex relationships in the past?
LOL - only in yours and 333's dreams
-
LOL - only in yours and 333's dreams
Okay. So no, Obama didn't admit to that?
-
LOL - only in yours and 333's dreams
False - Obama said he wanted to have a gay hook up w his professor - which is still dicey
-
LOL - only in yours and 333's dreams
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/barack-obama-gay-chicago-claims/
-
3 lies in 12 words.. might be a new record for you.
Didn't Obama himself admit to experimenting with same sex relationships in the past?
wouldn't be hard to find that on the net... did you find anything?
-
https://www.nationalenquirer.com/photos/barack-obama-gay-chicago-claims/
And a new low.. the National Enquirer as a source....
-
wouldn't be hard to find that on the net... did you find anything?
Thought it was in his latest Biography, which I have not read nor will I ever read. Did you read it?
-
Thought it was in his latest Biography, which I have not read nor will I ever read. Did you read it?
his latest biography?
what's the title?
-
Thought it was in his latest Biography, which I have not read nor will I ever read. Did you read it?
“He was a wonderful guy,” said Obama. “He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come into contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with… just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.”
In 2012, Goldyn told BuzzFeed that as a student Obama “talked to me, he hung around with me, he wanted to learn from me. He was clearly not gay. But he thought I was somebody unusual and somebody he had something to learn from.”
-
his latest biography?
what's the title?
This one I think?
https://www.amazon.com/Rising-Star-Making-Barack-Obama-ebook/dp/B01KFBO82E/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1525905936&sr=8-3&keywords=obama+biography&dpID=51rnD2Oyk4L&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
-
This one I think?
https://www.amazon.com/Rising-Star-Making-Barack-Obama-ebook/dp/B01KFBO82E/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1525905936&sr=8-3&keywords=obama+biography&dpID=51rnD2Oyk4L&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
I think the professors own words carry more weight than Garrows. If this was an auto biography it would carry some weight. But it doesn't matter to me if he was or wasnt. I'm more interested in whats true
-
This one I think?
https://www.amazon.com/Rising-Star-Making-Barack-Obama-ebook/dp/B01KFBO82E/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1525905936&sr=8-3&keywords=obama+biography&dpID=51rnD2Oyk4L&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
you think this is the book you were referring to?
did someone read it to you?
-
“He was a wonderful guy,” said Obama. “He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come into contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with… just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.”
In 2012, Goldyn told BuzzFeed that as a student Obama “talked to me, he hung around with me, he wanted to learn from me. He was clearly not gay. But he thought I was somebody unusual and somebody he had something to learn from.”
:-X
Three years later, writes the author, 'Obama wrote somewhat elusively to his first intimate girlfriend that he had thought about and considered gayness
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4470550/President-Obama-considered-pursuing-gay-relationship.html
Rising Star: The Making of Barack Obama Kindle Edition
by David Garrow (Author)
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51rnD2Oyk4L._SY346_.jpg)
https://www.amazon.com/Rising-Star-Making-Barack-Obama-ebook/dp/B01KFBO82E/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1525905936&sr=8-3&keywords=obama+biography&dpID=51rnD2Oyk4L&preST=_SY445_QL70_&dpSrc=srch
-
you think this is the book you were referring to?
did someone read it to you?
It has been posted on this board before, toward the end or after Obama's term. I didn't think it was disputed. Why do you believe it's so wrong for Obama to be gay? You consider having a gay president such a horrible thing? Why so passionate about denying Obama's true sexual preference?
-
It has been posted on this board before, toward the end or after Obama's term. I didn't think it was disputed. Why do you believe it's so wrong for Obama to be gay? You consider having a gay president such a horrible thing? Why so passionate about denying Obama's true sexual preference?
LOL - well if a post wasn't seen and disputed on this board then it must be true. I can't think of any higher standard than that
It's interesting that this author cites and letter that Obama wrote to an unnamed girlfriend
Why no copy of the letter or name of the girlfriend. Seems very odd to not support such a claim with a bit more detail. Did he mention in the book how he came to see a copy of this letter
BTW - I have no problem if Obama or you are gay.
-
LOL - well if a post wasn't seen and disputed on this board then it must be true. I can't think of any higher standard than that
It's interesting that this author cites and letter that Obama wrote to an unnamed girlfriend
Why no copy of the letter or name of the girlfriend. Seems very odd to not support such a claim with a bit more detail. Did he mention in the book how he came to see a copy of this letter
BTW - I have no problem if Obama and I are gay.
Wait, I don't get it. Obama admits to thinking about and considering "gayness", not bi-sexual relationships, but "gayness", and liberals on this board get their panties in a wad and go out of their way to say otherwise?
I'm confused. I would think liberals would welcome this revelation with open arms and love Obama all the more.
Well, I guess it goes with the saying that white liberals are really closet racists and all straight liberals are really closet homophobes.
-
Wait, I don't get it. Obama admits to thinking about and considering "gayness", not bi-sexual relationships, but "gayness", and liberals on this board get their panties in a wad and go out of their way to say otherwise?
I'm confused. I would think liberals would welcome this revelation with open arms and love Obama all the more.
Well, I guess it goes with the saying that white liberals are really closet racists and all straight liberals are really closet homophobes.
You definitely seem confused about many things
I don't recall anywhere where Obama admits to thinking about and considering "gayness"
You certainly seem to be thinking about "gayness" a lot
-
You definitely seem confused about many things
I don't recall anywhere where Obama admits to thinking about and considering "gayness"
I think about "gayness" a lot
I just posted about where Obama said that he thought about and considered gayness. Why does that upset you so much?
Are your gay references supposed to be taken as insults? Go figure, you closet homophobe.
-
I just posted about where Obama said that he thought about and considered gayness. Why does that upset you so much?
Are your gay references supposed to be taken as insults? Go figure, you closet homophobe.
no you didn't
you posted a link to a book where the author claims that Obama wrote that in a letter to an unnamed woman
kind of amazing that you don't understand the difference between those two things
maybe you really want Obama to be gay for some reason
why is that
are you considering gayness and looking for a role model
-
no you didn't
you posted a link to a book where the author claims that Obama wrote that in a letter to an unnamed woman
kind of amazing that you don't understand the difference between those two things
maybe you really want Obama to be gay for some reason
why is that
I'm considering gayness and looking for a role model
Has Obama denied this?
-
https://www.thenation.com/article/whats-behind-rights-obama-gay-conspiracy/
Seems important for the right to paint the left as homosexual...
Obama might be a lizard. I haven't read where he denied that
-
Has Obama denied this?
LOL
you probably think Obama gives a shit what people say or write about him
Think about all the total BS that Trump has said about Obama
Think about all the BS on right wing media (print, radio, TV Internet)
You actually believe that Obama or anyone needs to go around addressing and/or denying all that shit.
It seems you're really curious about people being secretly gay
Why is that?
-
LOL
you probably think Obama gives a shit what people say or write about him
Think about all the total BS that Trump has said about Obama
Think about all the BS on right wing media (print, radio, TV Internet)
You actually believe that Obama or anyone needs to go around addressing and/or denying all that shit.
I'm really curious about people being secretly gay
Why is that?
Trump didn't write Obama's biography.
-
https://www.thenation.com/article/whats-behind-rights-obama-gay-conspiracy/
Seems important for the right to paint the left as homosexual...
Obama might be a lizard. I haven't read where he denied that
So what? You called Board_SHERIF a liar for saying Obama is gay. How is that a lie given the fact that the author of Obama's biography said Obama wrote he thought about and considered gayness?
Is there an Obama biography that says he is a lizard? Not the same thing.
-
So what? You called Board_SHERIF a liar for saying Obama is gay. How is that a lie given the fact that the author of Obama's biography said Obama wrote he thought about and considered gayness?
Is there an Obama biography that says he is a lizard? Not the same thing.
so if I wrote that you're gay or I wrote that I read somewhere that you confessed to being gay that would be the same thing as you saying you're gay
that seems to be how you think things work
-
so if I wrote that I'm gay or I wrote that I read somewhere that I confessed to being gay that would be the same thing as me saying I'm gay
that seems to be how you think things work
Not the same thing. We're talking about Obama's biography written by David J. Garrow, an American historian and accomplished author who happens to be a liberal too.
-
So what? You called Board_SHERIF a liar for saying Obama is gay. How is that a lie given the fact that the author of Obama's biography said Obama wrote he thought about and considered gayness?
Is there an Obama biography that says he is a lizard? Not the same thing.
Garrow has met several times with President Barack Obama to discuss the book, though most of what went on in those conversations, he says, is off the record. Nonetheless, Garrow admits Obama “very strongly” disagrees with some of the claims he makes in the book.
Just as we can't believe everything in the latest Trump biography, we can't really think that a book written about Obama is more legit than a book written by Obama. I think you are under the assumption Obama was working with Garrows on this book
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/19/david-garrow-barack-obama-biography-reaction-review-215280
This review of his book seems to indicate Garrows wasn't at all kind to Obama, in fact, seemed to focus on the negatives. But from what I could pick out, he spoke at length and qouted Cook, an ex girlfriend about how much sex she had with Obama and not much I could find on anything referring to him being gay. Maybe you'll have better luck.
-
So what? You called Board_SHERIF a liar for saying Obama is gay. How is that a lie given the fact that the author of Obama's biography said Obama wrote he thought about and considered gayness?
Is there an Obama biography that says he is a lizard? Not the same thing.
SHERIF lies often. He says without any real proof that Obama is gay, a Muslim and not a citizen. I can understand disliking someone, I don't get the need to lie about them for no apparent reason. I notice no conservatives call him out for it... in fact, a few seem to want to defend him for lying. I see a pattern.
Since you are relying on some vague comment in the book to determine that Obama is gay and Sherif is noble.. please point out from that book where Garrows after 9 years of intense research, finds that Obama is a Muslim and not a US citizen. I'll wait
-
Not the same thing. We're talking about Obama's biography written by David J. Garrow, an American historian and accomplished author who happens to be a liberal too.
Makes no difference.
-
SHERIF lies often. He says without any real proof that Obama is gay, a Muslim and not a citizen. I can understand disliking someone, I don't get the need to lie about them for no apparent reason. I notice no conservatives call him out for it... in fact, a few seem to want to defend him for lying. I see a pattern.
Since you are relying on some vague comment in the book to determine that Obama is gay and Sherif is noble.. please point out from that book where Garrows after 9 years of intense research, finds that Obama is a Muslim and not a US citizen. I'll wait
Yes, many people called Obama many things because they don't like him, even hate him. I never thought or said Obama was a Muslim or a non-citizen. I never thought or said Obama was gay, until Obama admitted it himself in his biography.
I was just surprised you'd say someone was lying about Obama's gayness when Obama himself had admitted to it.
-
Makes no difference.
Sure, there's no difference between what a liberal, American historian and accomplished author says about Obama in Obama's biography and what you say about yourself in a post on the Internet.
-
Sure, there's no difference between what a liberal, American historian and accomplished author says about Obama in Obama's biography and what you say about yourself in a post on the Internet.
Nope, still no difference
-
great news. anything that pulls europe away from US foreign policy has to be welcomed
x2
Americans are tired of helping other countries, stand or fall on your own!
-
And a new low.. the National Enquirer as a source....
About as credible as CNN these days.
-
Yes, many people called Obama many things because they don't like him, even hate him. I never thought or said Obama was a Muslim or a non-citizen. I never thought or said Obama was gay, until Obama admitted it himself in his biography.
I was just surprised you'd say someone was lying about Obama's gayness when Obama himself had admitted to it.
Ok.. last time... provide proof that Obama admitted he was gay in his biography. This is getting ludicrous
-
SHERIF lies often. He says without any real proof that Obama is gay, a Muslim and not a citizen. I can understand disliking someone, I don't get the need to lie about them for no apparent reason. I notice no conservatives call him out for it... in fact, a few seem to want to defend him for lying. I see a pattern.
Since you are relying on some vague comment in the book to determine that Obama is gay and Sherif is noble.. please point out from that book where Garrows after 9 years of intense research, finds that Obama is a Muslim and not a US citizen. I'll wait
Chandu. Larry Sinclaire , the professor , the way he throws a ball , he’s a fairy. It’s ok just he should stop w the fake pretense marriage to the Wookiee
-
Ok.. last time... provide proof that Obama admitted he was gay in his biography. This is getting ludicrous
Already did.
-
Are We Waking Up from the Diplomacy Delusion?
Frontnpagemagazine ^ | May 10, 2018 | Bruce Thornton
Posted on 5/10/2018, 8:28:12 AM by SJackson
The real path to a more peaceful world.
President Trump this week withdrew the United States from the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. It’s about time. In the long history of delusional diplomatic agreements, Obama’s pact with the genocidal mullahs to halt their development of nuclear weapons was was one of the worst since Neville Chamberlain handed Czechoslovakia over to Nazi Germany. Like Trump’s abandoning of the feckless Paris Climate Accords, ending the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action may contribute to a needed reevaluation of the West’s antique paradigm of diplomatic engagement as the best way to stop aggression and protect our country’s interests and security.
The Europeans, of course, are unhappy. They’ve been doing a bustling business with Iran ever since Obama delivered $1.7 billion in cash on pallets as the payola to the mullahs for going along with the charade. At home, the evangelical internationalists of both parties and the foreign policy establishment are caterwauling, with grim predictions of doom of the sort we heard about North Korea until Kim, his mind apparently focused by Trump’s tough talk, agreed to meet with the president.
They all assert that Trump’s move is counterproductive, that under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the agreement was working and that Iran had stopped it progress. Not counting ballistic missiles, of course. Now, they warn, Iran is free to start the program back up and obtain a weapon sooner than they would have if the deal remained.
This is what counts as a diplomatic triumph for delusional internationalists: for nearly forty years, a brutal, apocalyptic, fanatical cult has been at declared war on us, threatened our closest ally Israel with genocide, murdered our troops, kidnapped our citizens, fomented terrorism across the world, and declared openly and repeatedly its hatred of us and its intentions to harm our interests––this failing state that brutalizes its own citizens and rampages throughout the Middle East will see its acquisition of nuclear weapons delayed for maybe a decade.
Forget the lies of the plan’s supporters, forget the despicable John Kerry, whose began his political career in the seventies by cozying up to the brutal North Vietnamese and slandering his comrades, and lately graduated to giving comfort and aid to another enemy. Forget the talk about us not keeping our word, when the only “word” that counts in international relations is a treaty ratified by our Senate. Forget the bipartisan gaggle of apologists who either are lying about the efficacy of the plan, or are terminally naïve. The only sure fact we know is that we have no real clue what Iran has been up to over the last few years. We don’t know how much progress they have secretly made as they have pretended to comply with the terms of the agreement.
That’s because the only way to know is to demand intrusive, unannounced inspections without limits on what to inspect. But Obama discarded that trump without even playing it.
Consider carefully The Wall Street Journal’s wording in its brief for the deal: “Most experts believe that the accord largely ensured that by removing roughly 98% of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, mothballing two-thirds of its uranium-spinning centrifuges, limiting research and development, and removing the core of the Arak reactor.” Not “know” or “have confirmed,” but “believe.” Apparently, many foreign policy wizards in this country and Europe are willing to roll the nuclear device based on an unverified “belief.” This is nearly as feckless as Neville Chamberlain telling his cabinet that Hitler “would not deliberately deceive a man whom he respected and with whom he had been in negotiation.” Maybe that’s why John Kerry has been canoodling with Iranian foreign minister Mohammed Javad Zarif, the slick and soothing “moderate” who pulled off this diplomatic swindle.
Worse yet, even if the Iranians have complied, so what? The fatal flaw of the agreement––that it terms out after a mere decade––is that it won’t keep the regime from the bomb, but merely delay it. Analysts disagree over how quickly the Iranians could create a nuclear device and a delivery system, but the main point is that deal or not, they possess and will keep all the infrastructure, enriched uranium, equipment, and technical know-how, along with help from Pakistan and North Korea, necessary eventually to succeed.
But we can be sure that the Iranians have cheated and lied, just as they cheated and lied to the world about not pursuing nuclear weapons program, a fact we know definitively because the Israelis, our only ally that seems to know what it’s doing and understands the hard world we live, stole 100,000 documents from under the mullah’s noses. The apologists, of course, brush that away as old news. Since the agreement, the Iranians have been the souls of honesty and rectitude, obeying every jot and tittle of the agreement they signed in faith.
Again, how do we know? We don’t. We just trust but don’t verify. But history tells us that every significant arms reduction or arms control agreement has been violated by most of the signatories. Germany in the twenties and thirties, the Soviet Union and Russia for decades, Saddam Hussein in the nineties, North Korea for the last thirty years, and now the Iranians. Especially the Iranians, given that they have not allowed inspectors unannounced access to all suspected facilities. And even with more intrusive inspections, we can’t be completely sure we’ve seen everything. Hussein managed to rope-a-dope international inspectors and intelligence agencies for several years until he just kicked them all out, even while Iraq was occupied by foreign troops, its army had been degraded and disarmed, and two-thirds of its country’s air-space dominated by its enemies. Only after the George Bush coalition invaded and removed Saddam from power in 2003 did we finally know for sure he had only a program.
No doubt numerous dire consequences will be prophesized by the disappointed keepers of worn-out foreign policy paradigms. Iran will restart its program! Though we don’t know if it’s even slowed it down that much. So it will get sooner rather than later what the deal already gave it. The Europeans will go their own way, refusing to cooperate with reimposed economic sanctions! As though we don’t have powerful economic incentives to concentrate the minds of E.U countries currently underperforming economically and facing intensifying resistance to Brussel’s high-handed ways. Iran might resort to terrorist attacks! Which suggests they have been restraining themselves lately, even as they have been brutally rampaging throughout the Middle East, empowering the terrorist gang Hezbollah, propping up the mass-murdering Assad, hijacking Lebanon, and threatening Saudi Arabia from Yemen.
On the other hand, turning off the economic respirator and restoring the deterrence that the feckless Obama squandered could have other, more positive effects. Reimposing sanctions could further weaken Iran’s economy, and increase its people’s anger over the ruling elite’s corruption, galvanizing the forces for regime change. Iran might provide some casus belli in the Gulf that could give us an opportunity to teach them the grim wages of arousing America’s might. Or Iran could lash out at Israel, which would invite a response they are unlikely to survive––especially if the U.S. keeps its nerve and backs Israel up with action rather than empty threats and Security Council tsk-tsking.
Obama’s bad agreement, however, is just climax of a bipartisan failure to accept the eternal lesson that weakness and restraint in the face of an aggressor only breed more aggression. We have never punished Iran for its offenses against our interests and honor: the hostage crisis, when Jimmy Carter dithered then paid ransom to Khomeini; the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, when the Reagan administration did not punish the Iranian-backed perpetrators, a failure that disgusted even the French who did strafe and bomb the camps in the Bekaa Valley over the attack on their embassy; the training, munitions, and money supplied to al Qaeda and other jihadist groups who have killed our troops in Iran and Afghanistan; and its continual support, throughout the region and beyond, for terrorist outfits targeting us and our allies. And, of course, Barack Obama’s groveling appeasement of them that has brought us to this pass, when time is running out, and the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are so severe for our interest and security, and those of our regional friends and allies.
Trump’s rejection of this deal can be the first step––and only a step–– in restoring our confident independence and willingness to take action when our security and interests are threatened. It must be followed up, however, with attention-getting action when it’s needed, with all the risk and uncertainty force always entails.
For a century we have indulged delusional fantasies, serially discredited by history, that multilateral negotiated agreements can give us the luxury of not having to take the politically risky and costly action required to stop aggression. It’s time to awaken from our foreign policy dogmatic slumbers. Returning our foreign policy to the tragic realism that, as Plato said, “war is the natural state of relations among states, and peace is just a name,” will restore our prestige, strengthen our power of deterrence, and create not world peace, but a more peaceful world.
-
IDF attacks dozens of Iranian targets in Syria
Israel National News ^ | May 10, 2018 (Israel) | Uzi Baruch and Kobi Finkler
Posted on 5/9/2018, 11:44:25 PM by familyop
...targets...Iranian intelligence sites...Logistics headquarters...military compound and logistics complex...An Iranian military camp...Weapons storage sites...at Damascus International Airport...Intelligence systems and installations...Observat ion, military posts...Iranian launcher...
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
________________________ ___
Obamatollah deeply anguished.
-
Already did.
No, you didn't. You obviously think you did, but you didn't. An alleged letter written to a girlfriend alleging he "considered and thought about gayness" which is stupid on its face value, is not Obama admitting he was gay.
-
No, you didn't. You obviously think you did, but you didn't. An alleged letter written to a girlfriend alleging he "considered and thought about gayness" which is stupid on its face value, is not Obama admitting he was gay.
Obama wrote the letter, the author wrote in Obama's biography. If you want to call the author a liar, go ahead. I don't care.
However, I have no reason to believe a liberal, American historian and accomplished author would lie about something like that, especially when Obama or anyone representing Obama won't deny it.
-
Obama wrote the letter, the author wrote in Obama's biography. If you want to call the author a liar, go ahead. I don't care.
However, I have no reason to believe a liberal, American historian and accomplished author would lie about something like that, especially when Obama or anyone representing Obama won't deny it.
Ok, I have a pretty clear reference on your bar on believing things, so we can agree Trump is racist.
-
Ok, I have a pretty clear reference on your bar on believing things, so we can agree Trump is racist.
Has Trump admitted to being a racist? Has a conservative, American historian and accomplished author written a biography of Trump in which he/she says Trump wrote a letter to someone in which he admits to being racist?
I did read that Trump's ex wife said that Trump isn't racist. She knows Trump and has said bad things about him before. Not sure why she would lie about this.
-
Has Trump admitted to being a racist? Has a conservative, American historian and accomplished author written a biography of Trump in which he/she says Trump wrote a letter to someone in which he admits to being racist?
I did read that Trump's ex wife said that Trump isn't racist. She knows Trump and has said bad things about him before. Not sure why she would lie about this.
we're done here Loco
-
we're done here Loco
Good to know.
-
Chandu. Larry Sinclaire , the professor , the way he throws a ball , he’s a fairy. It’s ok just he should stop w the fake pretense marriage to the Wookiee
Obama so loves the cock.
Oh, the cock.
-
Obama so loves the cock.
Oh, the cock.
Pretty sure by the way he did DB side laterals he was a little light in the loafers.
-
Pretty sure by the way he did DB side laterals he was a little light in the loafers.
typical right winger comment
-
typical right winger comment
Criticising gays and their workout form is definitely right wing. You say that like it's a bad thing.... continue to be queer with bad form
-
Ok.. last time... provide proof that Obama admitted he was gay in his biography. This is getting ludicrous
https://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama-Larry-Sinclair-Cocaine/dp/0615345069
he legalized gay marriage
-
https://www.amazon.com/Barack-Obama-Larry-Sinclair-Cocaine/dp/0615345069
he legalized gay marriage
Thats like saying Trump signed an executive order getting vets health care so he must like Vets getting hurt. But you knew that
-
Thats like saying Trump signed an executive order getting vets health care so he must like Vets getting hurt. But you knew that
he legalized gay marriage
-
he legalized gay marriage
Sorry, that's not proof he is gay. That's just proof he's a decent human being
-
Already did.
I haven't followed this thread for a couple of days
Did you post a copy of the letter and proof that Obama wrote it?
-
Interesting
https://twitter.com/Raman_Ghavami/status/993932711315329025 (https://twitter.com/Raman_Ghavami/status/993932711315329025)