Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Six Obama redlines/concessions on the Iranian nuke deal

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

polecat

polecat
Six Obama redlines/concessions on the Iranian nuke deal - Page 2 11701172_860305487379794_3394893683501694998_n

polecat

polecat
Six Obama redlines/concessions on the Iranian nuke deal - Page 2 Gop-reaction-iran-deal

polecat

polecat
Six Obama redlines/concessions on the Iranian nuke deal - Page 2 11223602_860317827378560_7923848683641722728_n

Guest


Guest
Yeah Reagan sold Iran weapons ( conventional) and used the profits to fund freedom fighters in Nicaragua. What's your point ?

Guest


Guest
polecat wrote:

Why didn't obama support the arab spring in iran like he did in egypt, libya, tunisia, syria, yemen... etc?

2seaoat


Why didn't obama support the arab spring in iran like he did in egypt, libya, tunisia, syria, yemen... etc?


If you do not think the CIA was not deployed in Iran during their Arab Spring, I have an old bathtub to sell to you.

Guest


Guest
Then where are the results ? No results? Nuf said.

Guest


Guest
Obama has given away everything including the kitchen sink.

Guest


Guest
boards of FL wrote:
2seaoat wrote:You have yet to present an alternative.


No.....there is one, and only one alternative.  War.  If you reject diplomacy, by making moronic criticism without diplomatic alternatives and without context, then you are arguing for war with Iran.  The Russians and Chinese would support Iran, and have contiguous land routes which Russia can control and would feed a nightmare deployment which would make Iraq seem like harmless war games.

If you believe that the Iranians were close friends and allies of America for forty years prior  to the shah's overthrow, you know most Iranians crave modernity and political change, yet some would choose to loose the battle for modernity and real lasting peace in the mideast under some illusion that bombing another country can solve every problem....it rarely has.



The problem there is that PkrBum subscribes to a college freshmen brand of libertarianism, which is a school of thought that is generally against war.  That is why I'm curious as to what PkrBum's alternative is to the Iran deal.

Personally, I'm not going to knock a policy unless I'm aware of a better alternative, so I'm curious as to whether or not PkrBum actually has a better alternative in mind, or if his criticism is simply blind, parroted, partisan talking points.

I think we all know what the answer is there, though I wanted to give him the chance to clear that up.

Perhaps you could break out the old censor and lock out buttons and make his reply change to FART to make you happy numb nuts.

*****BOARDS THE CHANGLING WONDER*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9IfHDi-2EA

Neutral

Markle

Markle
ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
Demssuck wrote:Israel's actions are always defensive and after the fact.

That is your bullshit opinion, PeeDawg.

No, that is plain, simple fact and we understand your desperation and deep seeded need to call names and behave like a spoiled child. Keep up the good work!

Markle

Markle
gatorfan wrote:
2seaoat wrote:You have yet to present an alternative.


No.....there is one, and only one alternative.  War.
  If you reject diplomacy, by making moronic criticism without diplomatic alternatives and without context, then you are arguing for war with Iran.  The Russians and Chinese would support Iran, and have contiguous land routes which Russia can control and would feed a nightmare deployment which would make Iraq seem like harmless war games.

If you believe that the Iranians were close friends and allies of America for forty years prior  to the shah's overthrow, you know most Iranians crave modernity and political change, yet some would choose to loose the battle for modernity and real lasting peace in the mideast under some illusion that bombing another country can solve every problem....it rarely has.

Whatever its real or imagined flaws this treaty was a necessary accomplishment. One would hope that the Iranian people will benefit from easing of sanctions and pressure their government to cease support of terrorist entities and scale back the fanaticism of Islamists. The young folks of Iran want the same things every young person wants - a chance to be a success and live to enjoy it. Hopefully this treaty is a step in the right direction.

Typical of the far left Progressives, like children they lay out alternatives as if everything is black or white, no area in between.

Semi-retired President Obama is quite possibly the worst negotiator in the history of all our presidents. He sincerely believes that the problem with the world and America is...America. We are too great. He feels that we need to be taken down a peg or two. Made inferior.

Markle

Markle
2seaoat wrote:The young folks of Iran want the same things every young person wants - a chance to be a success and live to enjoy it. Hopefully this treaty is a step in the right direction.

Probably the most intelligent thing posted on this thread, because it goes to the essence of why diplomacy was the only alternative.

Sadly, as we know, the LEADERS of Iran have no such thoughts of success for citizens.

2seaoat


Sadly, as we know, the LEADERS of Iran have no such thoughts of success for citizens.


Nobody can argue that the theocracy in Iran has been bad for the citizens of Iran.  At best all we can do at this time is support the moderates who seek modernity.

Sponsored content


Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum