Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
December 12, 2017, 09:36:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Six Points of Kissinger and Schultz’s Refutation of the Iran Deal  (Read 11719 times)
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #75 on: October 08, 2015, 04:10:54 PM »

You would think this would have been figured out when they put the deal together. 

EXCLUSIVE: U.S. officials conclude Iran deal violates federal law
By  James Rosen
Published October 08, 2015
FoxNews.com

Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

At issue is a passage tucked away in ancillary paperwork attached to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, as the Iran nuclear deal is formally known. Specifically, Section 5.1.2 of Annex II provides that in exchange for Iranian compliance with the terms of the deal, the U.S. “shall…license non-U.S. entities that are owned or controlled by a U.S. person to engage in activities with Iran that are consistent with this JCPOA.”

In short, this means that foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent companies will, under certain conditions, be allowed to do business with Iran. The problem is that the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act (ITRA), signed into law by President Obama in August 2012, was explicit in closing the so-called “foreign sub” loophole.

Indeed, ITRA also stipulated, in Section 218, that when it comes to doing business with Iran, foreign subsidiaries of U.S. parent firms shall in all cases be treated exactly the same as U.S. firms: namely, what is prohibited for U.S. parent firms has to be prohibited for foreign subsidiaries, and what is allowed for foreign subsidiaries has to be allowed for U.S. parent firms.

What’s more, ITRA contains language, in Section 605, requiring that the terms spelled out in Section 218 shall remain in effect until the president of the United States certifies two things to Congress: first, that Iran has been removed from the State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism, and second, that Iran has ceased the pursuit, acquisition, and development of weapons of mass destruction.

Additional executive orders and statutes signed by President Obama, such as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, have reaffirmed that all prior federal statutes relating to sanctions on Iran shall remain in full effect.

For example, the review act – sponsored by Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Foreign Relations Committee, and signed into law by President Obama in May – stated that “any measure of statutory sanctions relief” afforded to Iran under the terms of the nuclear deal may only be “taken consistent with existing statutory requirements for such action.” The continued presence of Iran on the State Department’s terror list means that “existing statutory requirements” that were set forth in ITRA, in 2012, have not been met for Iran to receive the sanctions relief spelled out in the JCPOA.

As the Iran deal is an “executive agreement” and not a treaty – and has moreover received no vote of ratification from the Congress, explicit or symbolic – legal analysts inside and outside of the Obama administration have concluded that the JCPOA is vulnerable to challenge in the courts, where federal case law had held that U.S. statutes trump executive agreements in force of law.

Administration sources told Fox News it is the intention of Secretary of State John Kerry, who negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran’s foreign minister and five other world powers, that the re-opening of the “foreign sub” loophole by the JCPOA is to be construed as broadly as possible by lawyers for the State Department, the Treasury Department and other agencies involved in the deal’s implementation.

But the apparent conflict between the re-opening of the loophole and existing U.S. law leaves the Obama administration with only two options going forward. The first option is to violate ITRA, and allow foreign subsidiaries to be treated differently than U.S. parent firms. The second option is to treat both categories the same, as ITRA mandated – but still violate the section of ITRA that required Iran’s removal from the State Department terror list as a pre-condition of any such licensing.

It would also renege on the many promises of senior U.S. officials to keep the broad array of American sanctions on Iran in place. Chris Backemeyer, who served as Iran director for the National Security Council from 2012 to 2014 and is now the State Department’s deputy coordinator for sanctions policy, told POLITICO last month “there will be no real sanctions relief of our primary embargo….We are still going to have sanctions on Iran that prevent most Americans from…engaging in most commercial activities.”

Likewise, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy last month, Adam Szubin, the acting under secretary of Treasury for terrorism and financial crimes, described Iran as “the world’s foremost sponsor of terrorism” and said existing U.S. sanctions on the regime “will continue to be enforced….U.S. investment in Iran will be prohibited across the board.”

Nominated to succeed his predecessor at Treasury, Szubin appeared before the Senate Banking Committee for a confirmation hearing the day after his speech to the Washington Institute. At the hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) asked the nominee where the Obama administration finds the “legal underpinnings” for using the JCPOA to re-open the “foreign sub” loophole.

Szubin said the foreign subsidiaries licensed to do business with Iran will have to meet “some very difficult conditions,” and he specifically cited ITRA, saying the 2012 law “contains the licensing authority that Treasury would anticipate using…to allow for certain categories of activity for those foreign subsidiaries.”

Elsewhere, in documents obtained by Fox News, Szubin has maintained that a different passage of ITRA, Section 601, contains explicit reference to an earlier law – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, on the books since 1977 – and states that the president “may exercise all authorities” embedded in IEEPA, which includes licensing authority for the president.

However, Section 601 is also explicit on the point that the president must use his authorities from IEEPA to “carry out” the terms and provisions of ITRA itself, including Section 218 – which mandated that, before this form of sanctions relief can be granted, Iran must be removed from the State Department’s terror list. Nothing in the Congressional Record indicates that, during debate and passage of ITRA, members of Congress intended for the chief executive to use Section 601 to overturn, rather than “carry out,” the key provisions of his own law.

One administration lawyer contacted by Fox News said the re-opening of the loophole reflects circular logic with no valid legal foundation. “It would be Alice-in-Wonderland bootstrapping to say that [Section] 601 gives the president the authority to restore the foreign subsidiary loophole – the exact opposite of what the statute ordered,” said the attorney, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations over implementation of the Iran deal.

At the State Department on Thursday, spokesman John Kirby told reporters Secretary Kerry is “confident” that the administration “has the authority to follow through on” the commitment to re-open the foreign subsidiary loophole.

“Under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president has broad authorities, which have been delegated to the secretary of the Treasury, to license activities under our various sanctions regimes, and the Iran sanctions program is no different,” Kirby said.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), the G.O.P. presidential candidate who is a Harvard-trained lawyer and ardent critic of the Iran deal, said the re-opening of the loophole fits a pattern of the Obama administration enforcing federal laws selectively.

“It’s a problem that the president doesn’t have the ability wave a magic wand and make go away,” Cruz told Fox News in an interview. “Any U.S. company that follows through on this, that allows their foreign-owned subsidiaries to do business with Iran, will very likely face substantial civil liability, litigation and potentially even criminal prosecution. The obligation to follow federal law doesn’t go away simply because we have a lawless president who refuses to acknowledge or follow federal law.”

A spokesman for the Senate Banking Committee could not offer any time frame as to when the committee will vote on Szubin’s nomination.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/08/exclusive-us-officials-conclude-iran-deal-violates-federal-law/?intcmp=hpbt2
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #76 on: October 09, 2015, 05:54:54 AM »

Many of those are on Medicare.  The preexisting conditions part is good, but overall the law is terrible.  Premiums have gone up for many.  Many people lost their doctor.  Many people have to buy insurance or be subject to a tax.  Many businesses hate it.  I have yet to speak with a single business owner who actually has employees who thinks it's a good law.  
well if the law is perceived as "terrible" then I guess thats what happens when the opposition abdicates its responsibility to provide input into a law when they should have participated in the legislative process as is ther job.....
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #77 on: October 30, 2015, 09:50:41 AM »

Businessman is first American detained by Iran since nuclear deal
Published October 30, 2015
FoxNews.com

A fourth Iranian-American has been arrested by Iranian security forces as the Islamic Republic begins implementing a nuclear deal struck with world powers, according to reports.

Siamak Namazi, a 40-year-old Dubai-based businessman who has spent most of his life advocating improved ties between the U.S. and Iran, was arrested about two weeks ago as he was visiting relatives in Tehran. His detention comes as an Internet freedom group said a Washington-based Lebanese citizen recently disappeared while on a trip to Tehran.

Iranian officials and state media haven’t commented either case. There has been speculation that some in Iran want to negotiate a prisoner swap with the U.S. for others held in the Islamic Republic, like detained Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian.

Namazi’s father was a well-to-do oil man in pre-revolutionary Iran. He left in 1983.

Namazi and his older brother were born and raised in the U.S. He has acted as liaison for western businesses wanted to do business in Iran through a company he set up in Iran and left in 2009.

He has also been accused of being an apologist for the regime, long calling for the dropping of sanctions against Iran. Apparently, though, he fell out with the hard-liners in the Revolutionary Guard who have long been suspicious of him.

His brother Babak Namazi works for an international law firm in Dubai. He is believed to be in Iran, perhaps trying to arrange his brother's release. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, Namazi is head of strategic planning at Crescent Petroleum Co. in Dubai.

The U.S. State Department declined to confirm Namazi's arrest.

"We're aware of recent reports of the possible arrest in Iran of a U.S. citizen.  We're looking into these reports and don't have anything further to provide at this time," Michael Tran, a State Department spokesman, said late Thursday.

Namazi's arrest suggests that hard-liners in Iran could be trying to create tension with the United States in the wake of Iran's nuclear deal with world powers, the Associated Press reported Friday. That agreement reached earlier this year promises Iran relief from crippling economic sanctions in exchange for curbs on its nuclear program.

Iranian hard-liners are opposed to moderate President Hassan Rouhani's strategy of attempting to improve ties with the West. Internal domestic struggles over the direction of Iran appear to be intensifying ahead of February's parliamentary elections.

The Washington-based National Iranian American Council said it was troubled by reports of Namazi's arrest and denied suggestions that his family had a leadership role in the organization, through it acknowledged "Namazi has known members of NIAC's staff."

"NIAC is very concerned by the continued detention of multiple Iranian Americans by the Iranian government, and is deeply troubled by the reports that Mr. Namazi may also have been detained," it said.

The arrest of an unnamed Iranian American businessman was first reported by IranWire, an online publication, on Oct. 15.

In the past few weeks, Iranian businessmen with links to foreign companies have been detained, interrogated and warned against becoming involved in economic monopolies controlled by Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard, the Journal reported in Friday.

An official at Crescent Petroleum, which is based near Dubai in the Emirati city of Sharjah, said he had no information and did not confirm Namazi's employment when reached by The Associated Press. He later referred questions to an outside public-relations firm that did not respond to requests for comment.

The Lebanese citizen, Nizar Zakka, disappeared Sept. 18 while visiting Tehran for a state-sponsored conference, according to a statement issued by the Washington-based group IJMA3-USA, which advocates for Internet freedom across the Middle East. Zakka was last seen leaving his hotel in a taxi for the airport to fly to Beirut, but never boarded his flight, according to the statement signed by lawyer Antoine Abou Dib.

"We have filed several requests with the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs asking assistance in locating him, without success," the statement said. "We therefore respectfully ask the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Lebanese Embassy in Tehran and the Iranian authorities to assist us in locating Mr. Zakka, and to confirm that he is safe and will soon be permitted to return home."

Other Americans held in Iran include former U.S. Marine Amir Hekmati, who holds dual Iranian and American citizenship and was arrested in August 2011. Saeed Abedini, a pastor from Boise was convicted in 2013 of threatening Iran's national security by participating in home churches. The U.S. also says it has asked for the Iranian government's assistance in finding former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who went missing in 2007 while working for the CIA on an unapproved intelligence mission.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/30/iranian-security-forces-said-to-detain-fourth-iranian-american/?intcmp=hplnws
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #78 on: January 25, 2016, 11:55:42 AM »

Heard Congressman Lieu speak about this over the weekend.  One of few Democrats with the stones to take a tough stand.  The most disturbing things:

1.  This deal allows the no. 1 state sponsor of terror with immediate access to billions of dollars. 

2.  Beginning in year 8 and continuing to year 15, Iran gets to all have everything back they are giving up, which will allow them to develop ballistic nuclear weapons that can reach the U.S. in year 15. 

3.  Before year 15, Iran will be able use the billions in revenue to develop their infrastructure, military, etc., making disarming them after year 15 impossible without substantial ground forces. 

4.  The likelihood of Israel taking preemptive action in Iran before year 15 is very high. 

You can find his comprehensive written objection to the deal here:  http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/10/blue-state-blues-l-a-media-silent-as-ted-lieu-rejects-iran-deal/
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #79 on: January 25, 2016, 02:33:15 PM »

Heard Congressman Lieu speak about this over the weekend.  One of few Democrats with the stones to take a tough stand.  The most disturbing things:

1.  This deal allows the no. 1 state sponsor of terror with immediate access to billions of dollars. 

2.  Beginning in year 8 and continuing to year 15, Iran gets to all have everything back they are giving up, which will allow them to develop ballistic nuclear weapons that can reach the U.S. in year 15. 

3.  Before year 15, Iran will be able use the billions in revenue to develop their infrastructure, military, etc., making disarming them after year 15 impossible without substantial ground forces. 

4.  The likelihood of Israel taking preemptive action in Iran before year 15 is very high. 

You can find his comprehensive written objection to the deal here:  http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/10/blue-state-blues-l-a-media-silent-as-ted-lieu-rejects-iran-deal/

What an ironic statement coming from the great fence-sitter....HILARIOUS!!!!!!! Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #80 on: January 26, 2016, 11:58:16 AM »

What an ironic statement coming from the great fence-sitter....HILARIOUS!!!!!!! Grin

So no comment about what Congressman Lieu had to say about the deal? 
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #81 on: January 26, 2016, 12:05:00 PM »

Is congress going to pass this?

Are some here still blindly supporting this treaty without a full examination of the details and their ramifications?
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #82 on: January 26, 2016, 12:08:13 PM »

Is congress going to pass this?

Are some here still blindly supporting this treaty without a full examination of the details and their ramifications?

Congress doesn't have to pass it.  It's not a treaty.  It's an agreement Obama made with Iran, which the next president can rescind. 
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #83 on: January 26, 2016, 12:15:02 PM »

Congress doesn't have to pass it.  It's not a treaty.  It's an agreement Obama made with Iran, which the next president can rescind. 

Shit that could end up being  enough reason to vote for Trump lol

I thought it was a treaty that congress had to pass.  If a repub get elected, that "deal" probably won't last which makes the deal it self not very solid for the iranians.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #84 on: January 26, 2016, 12:16:43 PM »

Shit that could end up being  enough reason to vote for Trump lol

I thought it was a treaty that congress had to pass.  If a repub get elected, that "deal" probably won't last which makes the deal it self not very solid for the iranians.

I hope so.  It's a disaster.  A surefire way to cause another major conflict in the Middle East. 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #85 on: January 26, 2016, 04:45:01 PM »

Is congress going to pass this?

Are some here still blindly supporting this treaty without a full examination of the details and their ramifications?

I'm in full support of the treaty and not blindly so...I'm a realist....the Iranians were progressing toward a nuclear weapon ANYWAY...NOTHING was going to stop that.....no amount of sanctions can stop a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons....CASE IN POINT: North Korea...one of the poorest backward nations on earth.....Despite sanctions, Iran was making steady progress toward the bomb.

Great Britain and France  stated they would not support sanctions any longer if the United States did not agree to the deal..so had the US opposed this deal, all of the nations in the world would have broken with us and started doing business with Iran....SANCTIONS WERE NOT GOING TO HOLD MUCH LONGER..NOW Iran is 15 years from the bomb instead of about a year away

I further support it because the alternative would have been war.....WE ARE BROKE...OUR MILITARY NEEDS TIME TO RECOVER FROM TWO SIMULTANEOUS WARS and we would be going to war AGAIN for the 3rd time in 12 years in the middle east...more wasted blood and treasure
and also WAR HAS FAILED IN THE MIDDLE EAST AS A TOOL OF CHANGE

I also support this treaty because MANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN ISRAEL SUPPORT THE DEAL....many leaders of Shin Bet and the Mossad,,and many generals in their military  have came out in favor of the deal and have openly criticized Netanyahu for opposing the deal..if its good enough for them then its good enough for me since their survival is directly threatened

Finally the U.N and the has certified that Iran has complied with all terms of the treaty so far and even that they complied with the pre-terms even before the treaty was actually agreed upon

just being real







Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #86 on: January 26, 2016, 04:46:33 PM »

Congress doesn't have to pass it.  It's not a treaty.  It's an agreement Obama made with Iran, which the next president can rescind. 

NO PRESIDENT is going to rescind the treaty negotiated by another president...not gonna happen...they may try to modify it but that's dead in the water as well because Russia China Britain and France would have to approve...they wont
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #87 on: January 26, 2016, 04:50:33 PM »

Shit that could end up being  enough reason to vote for Trump lol

I thought it was a treaty that congress had to pass.  If a repub get elected, that "deal" probably won't last which makes the deal it self not very solid for the iranians.
The deal is here to stay.......presidents seldom make attempts to overturn an agreement signed and negotiated by his predecessor....also if congress does not pass it, the president will veto and it will automatically come into force.....The republicans don't have a 2/3 majority to overturn the veto..it here to stay guys...

Sorry
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #88 on: January 26, 2016, 04:51:48 PM »

I hope so.  It's a disaster.  A surefire way to cause another major conflict in the Middle East. 

Actually we avoided conflict.....if Israel decided to do something in the future , so be it.....its their blood and treasure....not ours
Report to moderator   Logged
OzmO
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 21894


Take Money Out of Politics!


« Reply #89 on: January 26, 2016, 05:00:10 PM »

I'm in full support of the treaty and not blindly so...I'm a realist....the Iranians were progressing toward a nuclear weapon ANYWAY...NOTHING was going to stop that.....no amount of sanctions can stop a determined nation from acquiring nuclear weapons....CASE IN POINT: North Korea...one of the poorest backward nations on earth.....Despite sanctions, Iran was making steady progress toward the bomb.

Great Britain and France  stated they would not support sanctions any longer if the United States did not agree to the deal..so had the US opposed this deal, all of the nations in the world would have broken with us and started doing business with Iran....SANCTIONS WERE NOT GOING TO HOLD MUCH LONGER..NOW Iran is 15 years from the bomb instead of about a year away

I further support it because the alternative would have been war.....WE ARE BROKE...OUR MILITARY NEEDS TIME TO RECOVER FROM TWO SIMULTANEOUS WARS and we would be going to war AGAIN for the 3rd time in 12 years in the middle east...more wasted blood and treasure
and also WAR HAS FAILED IN THE MIDDLE EAST AS A TOOL OF CHANGE

I also support this treaty because MANY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN ISRAEL SUPPORT THE DEAL....many leaders of Shin Bet and the Mossad,,and many generals in their military  have came out in favor of the deal and have openly criticized Netanyahu for opposing the deal..if its good enough for them then its good enough for me since their survival is directly threatened

Finally the U.N and the has certified that Iran has complied with all terms of the treaty so far and even that they complied with the pre-terms even before the treaty was actually agreed upon

just being real


Way to use you head. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #90 on: January 26, 2016, 05:49:13 PM »

NO PRESIDENT is going to rescind the treaty negotiated by another president...not gonna happen...they may try to modify it but that's dead in the water as well because Russia China Britain and France would have to approve...they wont

It's not a treaty. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #91 on: January 26, 2016, 05:50:51 PM »

Actually we avoided conflict.....if Israel decided to do something in the future , so be it.....its their blood and treasure....not ours

No we didn't.  We essentially guaranteed a full-scale war.  When Israel attacks, we are going to be involved, along with many other countries. 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #92 on: January 26, 2016, 07:07:32 PM »

No we didn't.  We essentially guaranteed a full-scale war.  When Israel attacks, we are going to be involved, along with many other countries. 

what Israel does is their business...we can't control them...why is that our job?..if they feel its in their best interest to attack, they will
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #93 on: January 27, 2016, 09:41:43 AM »

what Israel does is their business...we can't control them...why is that our job?..if they feel its in their best interest to attack, they will

Incredibly naive.  In the real world, what our allies do is our business.  If our allies and enemies are involved in a full scale war, we are going to be involved.  When Israel attacks Iran, Iran will respond.  It's likely other ME countries join.  We will too. 
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #94 on: January 27, 2016, 11:20:32 AM »

Incredibly naive.  In the real world, what our allies do is our business.  If our allies and enemies are involved in a full scale war, we are going to be involved.  When Israel attacks Iran, Iran will respond.  It's likely other ME countries join.  We will too. 

I see your line of reasoning here and on the surface it is logical...but my point is that the United States has NEVER been able to control Israel....its a false idea if people think we can....if the U.S could control Israel they would not have nuclear weapons, would not be continually taking away palestinian land to build settlements (the U.S. has demanded for years that they stop), etc.

Also Israel has attacked Iraq and destroyed their reactor.....and has attacked Syria and destroyed their reactor as well, YET the U.S. did not get involved and could not stop Israel from attacking...AND those countries did not retaliate because they knew that Israel was stronger....so it doesn't mean that Iran would go to war against Israel..

So even though I think your thinking on this has merit and is definitely logical I don't think that it would necessarily lead to us being involved in war
Report to moderator   Logged
Dos Equis
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 52204

I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)


« Reply #95 on: January 27, 2016, 11:31:31 AM »

I see your line of reasoning here and on the surface it is logical...but my point is that the United States has NEVER been able to control Israel....its a false idea if people think we can....if the U.S could control Israel they would not have nuclear weapons, would not be continually taking away palestinian land to build settlements (the U.S. has demanded for years that they stop), etc.

Also Israel has attacked Iraq and destroyed their reactor.....and has attacked Syria and destroyed their reactor as well, YET the U.S. did not get involved and could not stop Israel from attacking...AND those countries did not retaliate because they knew that Israel was stronger....so it doesn't mean that Iran would go to war against Israel..

So even though I think your thinking on this has merit and is definitely logical I don't think that it would necessarily lead to us being involved in war

You're actually making my point:  we cannot control Israel, which means Israel will take military action against Iran before year 15, just like Congressman Lieu acknowledged.  It's what happens after they attack Iran that affects the entire region and the U.S. 

Depending on when they strike, it's not going to be simply blowing up a site here or there.  Iran now has billions to develop their military and infrastructure.  They will be head and shoulders above and stronger than Iran or Syria.  Much more will be required to stop their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program.  If the next president does not stop this, it will not end well.   
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #96 on: January 27, 2016, 11:58:28 AM »

You're actually making my point:  we cannot control Israel, which means Israel will take military action against Iran before year 15, just like Congressman Lieu acknowledged.  It's what happens after they attack Iran that affects the entire region and the U.S. 

Depending on when they strike, it's not going to be simply blowing up a site here or there.  Iran now has billions to develop their military and infrastructure.  They will be head and shoulders above and stronger than Iran or Syria.  Much more will be required to stop their nuclear weapons and ballistic missile program.  If the next president does not stop this, it will not end well.   

Again, better for the Israelis to do it than us...we simply can't take another war at this time........negotiation is better than war at this point....war in the middle east has brought us nothng but ruin.....I don't see Iran battling Israel directly if Israel attacks but they could unleash Hezbollah against Israel and the U.S.

and the next president WILL NOT CANCEL THE AGREEMENT...even if its a Republican.....it would totally destroy our prestige in the world
Report to moderator   Logged
AbrahamG
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4622

The vagina is my third favorite hole.


« Reply #97 on: January 27, 2016, 04:39:22 PM »

Again, better for the Israelis to do it than us...we simply can't take another war at this time........negotiation is better than war at this point....war in the middle east has brought us nothng but ruin.....I don't see Iran battling Israel directly if Israel attacks but they could unleash Hezbollah against Israel and the U.S.

and the next president WILL NOT CANCEL THE AGREEMENT...even if its a Republican.....it would totally destroy our prestige in the world

Hezbollah is a regional force.  I do not view them as an existential threat to the United States unless we provoke them.  Israel is a wart on the cock of humanity.
Report to moderator   Logged
andreisdaman
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 16378



« Reply #98 on: January 27, 2016, 05:28:30 PM »

Hezbollah is a regional force.  I do not view them as an existential threat to the United States unless we provoke them.  Israel is a wart on the cock of humanity.



LOL Cheesy..why do you say that?
Report to moderator   Logged
AbrahamG
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 4622

The vagina is my third favorite hole.


« Reply #99 on: January 27, 2016, 07:04:34 PM »



LOL Cheesy..why do you say that?

Israel does not want peace.  They want land and more land.  While I don't agree with suicide bombings and targeting civilians, if it weren't for Hamas and Hezbollah Israel would have all of Palestine, Lebanon and God knows what else.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!