Forum Thread

Senate Republicans Do Netanyahu's Bidding; Attempt to Sabotage Iran Deal

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 46 - 60 of 88 Prev 2 3 4 5 6 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: This diplomatic discussion was not done in good faith because of the suggestion of a ten year compliance term when in fact they couldn't go beyond 2 years because of a new president in 2017 and they knew this and yet went on with the assertion of the ten year term, as you said ,times change as will political climates, but no one knows what the future holds, So why lie and say 10 when it's only 2 years they can certify./ guarantee. that is not being presumptuous but rather it's outright lie.
    again you fail to understand but at least you are consistent in your failure.

    non-binding takes congress out of the equation during the actual negotiations which is as it should be. congress has no right to interfere in the negotiations. 10 years is the term put forth during the negotiations so that when or if it becomes a treaty it would become both binding and a ten year term.

    to use your simplistic example would a union negotiator be bargaining in good faith if he took back an agreement that he knew the rank and file would not ratify even though it was the best he could get at the table?

    it is obvious from this thread that it will be impossible to reach an agreement with iran as long as we have people like tom cotton and yertle the turtle in the senate. the u.s. has no unilateral right to determine who can have a nuclear program. having a nuclear program is not the same thing as building weapons but that aside the whole "we can't let them have a bomb because they'll...a) use it, b)use it on israel, c) give it to terrorists who will use it, d) give it to terrorists who will use it on israel is flawed from the start. isarel has approximately 200 nukes. iran would cease to exist and despite the efforts of many to paint the mullahs as sitting around plotting how to end the world that simply isn't the case.

    we stood toe to toe with two nations that actually engaged in proxy warfare with us in the ussr and the prc and yet not one nuke was used. but we are to believe that those who ran those nations were somehow more to be trusted arbitrarily than iran? hell, pakistan is riddled with politically radicalized idiots yet we don't hear the same rhetoric about them.

    no, enough of this bullschlitz.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    pgr Wrote: A road kill skunk would be a better president than ANY Republican wannabe cadidate riding in the clown car!
    Doubt it; which ever "skunk" smells money or favors, that is the one who gets elected; my guess is that the 1% this time have more resources than ever; they will do everything to get it their way; they are scared stiff of higher taxes on their hoards if a Democrat wins, so they will use every trick to get in. Praise the $ who has the most wins.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird -- Well said.

    "we stood toe to toe with two nations that actually engaged in proxy warfare with us in the ussr and the prc and yet not one nuke was used. but we are to believe that those who ran those nations were somehow more to be trusted arbitrarily than iran? hell, pakistan is riddled with politically radicalized idiots yet we don't hear the same rhetoric about them.

    no, enough of this bullschlitz."


    Actually I would fear nuclear war more if some of "politically radicalized idiots" we have in America were ever put in charge of the bomb. With their crazy apocalyptic vision of the End Times they just might make the wrong decision for the wrong reason. Their brains are wired differently.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: This diplomatic discussion was not done in good faith because of the suggestion of a ten year compliance term when in fact they couldn't go beyond 2 years because of a new president in 2017 and they knew this and yet went on with the assertion of the ten year term,
    You still have yet to name one time in our nations 200 plus year history that an incoming President or Congress voided an international agreement the previous President negotiated. For the love of God. Do some damn research and stop repeating Tom Cotton's and the Republican Party's talking points.
    johnnycee Wrote: as you said ,times change as will political climates, but no one knows what the future holds, So why lie and say 10 when it's only 2 years they can certify./ guarantee. that is not being presumptuous but rather it's outright lie.
    That's why we have agreements that last longer than two years! You and Tom Cotton's new standard for international agreements would make it literally impossible to ever conduct foreign policy or make international agreements that last longer than two years because our Congress is constantly changing. I encourage you to try to see through your blind hatred of our President and think logically about how this nation conducts its business for once.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: it is obvious from this thread that it will be impossible to reach an agreement with iran as long as we have people like tom cotton and yertle the turtle in the senate. the u.s. has no unilateral right to determine who can have a nuclear program. having a nuclear program is not the same thing as building weapons but that aside the whole "we can't let them have a bomb because they'll...a) use it, b)use it on israel, c) give it to terrorists who will use it, d) give it to terrorists who will use it on israel is flawed from the start. isarel has approximately 200 nukes. iran would cease to exist and despite the efforts of many to paint the mullahs as sitting around plotting how to end the world that simply isn't the case.
    I one hundred percent agree lonely, but when have the Republicans ever put forward an argument that wasn't flawed? Rational, realistic arguments aren't necessarily their forte. Calling our President a socialist who wants to destroy America from the inside is a lot easier for them and some so called 'independents.'
    lonely bird Wrote:we stood toe to toe with two nations that actually engaged in proxy warfare with us in the ussr and the prc and yet not one nuke was used. but we are to believe that those who ran those nations were somehow more to be trusted arbitrarily than iran? hell, pakistan is riddled with politically radicalized idiots yet we don't hear the same rhetoric about them.
    Well said.

    The reason Republicans don't talk about Pakistan is because they are our 'ally.' I put that in quotes because Pakistan has been responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of US military deaths since 2001. But that doesn't matter to Republicans and 'independents' because...well, it just doesn't. It makes their brain hurt too much to think critically about those things. Just like it makes their brain hurt to think too much about anything that isn't given to them as a talking point.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    President Obama weighed in on the Republican theatrics in an upcoming interview with Vice News. The interview is set to be aired on Monday, but they just aired a trailer where the President says of Senate Republicans:
    "I’m embarrassed for them. For them to address a letter to the ayatollah, who they claim is our mortal enemy, and their basic argument to them is "don’t deal with our president 'cause you can’t trust him to follow through on an agreement." That's close to unprecedented." --President Obama



    I would add in that it's close to being treasonous, as well. But that's just my opinion. I'm also embarrassed for Republicans. Their and 'independents' hatred of this President runs so deep that they are willing to sabotage international agreements so they can get their way. And they say that President Obama is the unpatriotic one. I'd suggest that actively working to undercut a sitting President in order to do the bidding of a Zionist Prime Minister is about as unpatriotic as it can get.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    You can dance around with your mindless rhetoric all you want, whether or not it was done in the past,rightly or wrongly is not germane to this discussion, what is a fact is that this Sen .Cotton plus some of his colleagues wrote a public letter to the Iranian officials informing them of a possible misconception in the wording of the agreement that they were in discussion about, which was true if the President was to use Presidential Executive Powers to enact it,but now it seems they will try to get it thru the UN as a Security issue, thereby avoiding Congress's input altogether. So Sen. Cotton whether he wanted to or not aided the cause for the Agreement by having the UN possibly deciding the issue.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote: Actually I would fear nuclear war more if some of "politically radicalized idiots" we have in America were ever put in charge of the bomb. With their crazy apocalyptic vision of the End Times they just might make the wrong decision for the wrong reason. Their brains are wired differently.
    You and me both. There are more than a few crazies on the right who wouldn't think twice about trying to usher in the Biblical Armageddon. To them the Revelation of John isn't just words on a piece of paper, but the word of God himself as spoken to a man who is isolated from all of humanity on an island all by himself. It's not crazy to them because it's what God wants. God wants a civilization ending war because... Well, I don't really know why a loving and peaceful God who loves everyone wants humans to wipe each other out, but that's what he said he wants and we must listen.

    I am legitimately nervous about another Evangelical Christian getting the keys to the White House. We dodged a bullet with W not listening to some in his party who wanted us to nuke Iraq, but who knows if we will dodge that bullet again if a (gulp) less competent Republican is elected?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    [url=https://www.democratichub.com/user/78196.aspx">johnnycee[/url] Wrote: You can dance around with your mindless rhetoric all you want, whether or not it was done in the past,rightly or wrongly is not germane to this discussion, what is a fact is that this Sen .Cotton plus some of his colleagues wrote a public letter to the Iranian officials informing them of a possible misconception in the wording of the agreement that they were in discussion about, which was true if the President was to use Presidential Executive Powers to enact it,but now it seems they will try to get it thru the UN as a Security issue, thereby avoiding Congress's input altogether. So Sen. Cotton whether he wanted to or not aided the cause for the Agreement by having the UN possibly deciding the issue.
    Plain, pure, unadulterated bullshit. Cotton, in his arrogance, decided to stick his phucquing nose in what was not his phucquing business. The pinhead did something that despite rw claims to the contrary hadn't ever been done before on such a sensitive issue. And if you think that Iran's leadership doesn't understand american politics then you are a fool. Hell, how many Iranians went to university in the u.s.? Cotton wants a leadership job. Here's hoping the asshole gets nothing especially if the reps lose control of the senate.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    lonely bird Wrote: Plain, pure, unadulterated bullshit. Cotton, in his arrogance, decided to stick his phucquing nose in what was not his phucquing business. The pinhead did something that despite rw claims to the contrary hadn't ever been done before on such a sensitive issue. And if you think that Iran's leadership doesn't understand american politics then you are a fool. Hell, how many Iranians went to university in the u.s.? Cotton wants a leadership job. Here's hoping the asshole gets nothing especially if the reps lose control of the senate.
    Here here.

    Cotton is a Neanderthal, but we, or should I say most, of us already know that. Cotton and the people who repeat his talking points on a daily basis like to think of Iranian leadership in the same way Bush was able to convince the country of Iraq's leadership. They have to create this image of a third world country who can't add 2 + 2 in order to get the American public on board for yet another war. They are either unaware or intentionally leaving out the fact that many of Iran's leaders went to college here in America and fully comprehend how things work in our country. My main worry is that this intentional lying and misleading worked for the Iraq war. I sure as hell hope we don't have a Déjà vu moment this time around.

    It's easy for Cotton and his friends to attempt to sabotage things, but what do they offer in return? Absolutely nothing. Neither he nor anyone who pushes his daily talking points offer any alternative. All they offer is a path to yet another war for no damn reason at all. But I guess that's the compassionate Christian thing for us to do. It's like Jesus always said to his disciples--tell everyone else in the world that they have to do everything we tell them and go bomb their country to oblivion if they don't.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    Schmidt Wrote: Actually I would fear nuclear war more if some of "politically radicalized idiots" we have in America were ever put in charge of the bomb. With their crazy apocalyptic vision of the End Times they just might make the wrong decision for the wrong reason. Their brains are wired differently.
    You and me both. There are more than a few crazies on the right who wouldn't think twice about trying to usher in the Biblical Armageddon. To them the Revelation of John isn't just words on a piece of paper, but the word of God himself as spoken to a man who is isolated from all of humanity on an island all by himself. It's not crazy to them because it's what God wants. God wants a civilization ending war because... Well, I don't really know why a loving and peaceful God humans to wipe each other out, but I also stopped questioning Christians logic about the end of the world a long time ago.
    Jared and Schmidt; yes we can discuss the "weird" brains of Republicans forever; I guess they preach only four words; "religion", "the military" and of course "money" and "love for wars and "guns"". The other words they don't like is : "global warming" ; abortions/birthcontrol; science; reality; gays; allah ( another human created "god'); poor people; honest people who are no hypocrites; people who don't wave flags or have no chest full of stripes and medals; also they hate people who do not use their guns on other thinking or differerent etnic "come of" anywhere in the world.Their ancesters likely murdered all the Indians here.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Furthermore... Since George W. Bush claimed there was an axis of evil supporting terrorism and that Iran was a part of said axis and that we were involved in a global war on terror it can be construed that we are at war with Iran. And thus the letter by the senators was most assuredly providing aid to the enemy in the form of undercutting the commander-in-chief during said war on terror.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    What is b/s is the continuing direction of your conversation about the writer rather than the message, you are plainly too partisan in your politics to see the message, first you attack the writer ,then the method of delivery, and finally the recipient (me), the question I asked was never answered., although the Administration has decided it seems to try a different approach and that is to propose it to the UN as a Security issue, so in effect my question was answered unfortunately not by the those who posted on here to my question.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: You can dance around with your mindless rhetoric all you want, whether or not it was done in the past,rightly or wrongly is not germane to this discussion, what is a fact is that this Sen .Cotton plus some of his colleagues wrote a public letter to the Iranian officials informing them of a possible misconception in the wording of the agreement that they were in discussion about, which was true if the President was to use Presidential Executive Powers to enact it,but now it seems they will try to get it thru the UN as a Security issue, thereby avoiding Congress's input altogether. So Sen. Cotton whether he wanted to or not aided the cause for the Agreement by having the UN possibly deciding the issue.
    And once again--who appointed you the decider of what is or isn't germane to a discussion that you didn't start? You have, as you typically do, hijacked the conversation and said that whatever you have to say is the only thing that we should be talking about. Things don't work that way. But even so, the fact that this has never been done in our nations history is absolutely 'germane to this discussion.' How in the hell could it not be? Sitting United States Senators are trying to undermine the President of the United States who is hammering out an international agreement between all of the worlds powers. The fact that a bunch of far right zealots who are doing Netanyahu's bidding is absolutely, one hundred percent, 'germane to this discussion.'

    You also seem to be fixated on this idea that all Cotton was doing was just trying to help his friends in Iran out and that he had zero ulterior motives in sending this letter out. That's pretty sad coming from someone who thinks that every damn thing this administration does is a wide ranging conspiracy theory that warrants the resignation or firing of one cabinet official or another. Seriously--I can't think of a damn cabinet official you haven't called to resign. But I'm sorry--you're the independent and wise thinker who just wants what's best for this country, huh?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: What is b/s is the continuing direction of your conversation about the writer rather than the message, you are plainly too partisan in your politics to see the message, first you attack the writer ,then the method of delivery, and finally the recipient (me), the question I asked was never answered., although the Administration has decided it seems to try a different approach and that is to propose it to the UN as a Security issue, so in effect my question was answered unfortunately not by the those who posted on here to my question.
    Did you just call someone else too partisan? Really? You have spewed out far right talking points on a daily basis for years. Seriously--you say far right talking points verbatim on a daily basis while hiding behind the banner of 'independence.' Everyone other than you knows how laughable your 'independent' stances sound. This would be akin to me going on to a conservative website and consistently writing liberal opinion pieces while insisting that I'm just an independent republican who sees the light. We all know it's a joke. Maybe you can eventually admit it yourself.

    And I did answer your question on another thread. You just chose to not read it.
    "As to your question--how in the world would I not think the P5 + 1 bargained in good faith? Why would the worlds six major powers invest years of time and energy in negotiating a peaceful solution just for shits and giggles? Were these six major nations not privy to some secret that you as an average American citizen know about? Did Netanyahu and Congressional Republicans give you a super-secret briefing of Iran's nuclear weapons program that they somehow were able to hide from the P5 + 1? What a joke."
    Or was this not the question anymore? Who the hell knows because you constantly change your questions all the damn time once someone else proves you wrong.

    Do you honestly think that if we all just listened to war mongering people like you that the world would be a better place? I'm sorry, but we listened to war mongers like you for far too long in this country and I sure as hell will do everything I can to make sure my government doesn't listen to people like you ever again because I'm tired of fighting wars for sport. I know you're not because you're too old to go off and die for no reason, but why do you feel the need to force thousands of other young men and women to go fight wars for sport? Where in your good book does Jesus tell you to hold so much hatred in your heart against people who don't look like you and happen to interpret Abraham's teachings differently than you do? Something is seriously wrong with you.