HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 3, 2015 The Moonbat weighs in..... WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she was "near tears" during a speech to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday. Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States" as part of a group of nations negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu slammed an emerging agreement with Iran and said it would allow the country to acquire a nuclear weapon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,311 Posted March 3, 2015 A declawed cat stuck in a corner won't scratch very hard Are you confident that they are declawed? They have an actual military. Not a great one, sure. We would win a war with them and so would Israel. But at what cost? Look I'm not saying what the best course of action is - nobody knows for sure and anyone who tells you they do is lying or deluded. It's a very complicated situation. In fact Netanyahu has an election coming up and the republicans are clearly looking forward to 2016. That's what this is all about. What I am saying is there are unintended consequences for every action. In the case of going for the throat on your opponent, you put them in a spot where their only choice for survival is to try to take you out instead. Not always a smart move even if, yes, you would ultimately win that battle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,455 Posted March 3, 2015 The Moonbat weighs in..... WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said she was "near tears" during a speech to Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday. Pelosi, a California Democrat, said she was "saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States" as part of a group of nations negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran. Netanyahu slammed an emerging agreement with Iran and said it would allow the country to acquire a nuclear weapon. Nancy Pelosi and "sad" should always be together..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DankNuggs 305 Posted March 3, 2015 Pelosi is at her best responding to anything she feels is insulting Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,455 Posted March 3, 2015 Pelosi is at her best responding to anything she feels is insulting And insulting means, that which she disagree's with Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 3, 2015 Pelosi is yet another reason nobody should take the dimwit party seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted March 3, 2015 What exactly is Iran's obligation under Obama's "deal"? Iran gets sanctions lifted, and can keep their nuclear enrichment program, and even increase the number of centrifuges. Because of course, oil-rich Iran needs nuclear energy... The only obligation I can find through Google searches is "in exchange, the Iranians would undertake an obligation to bring their influence to bear in order to ensure quiet in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria." WTF? So they can build nuclear weapons if they promise to promote stability in the middle east? What kind of deal is that? Irans obligation is monitoring. According to evryone involved, Iran has not yet developed nuclear weapons, even Israel acknowledges that. Iran would have to submit to hands on monitoring, with the thought that if Iran decides to not honor the monitoring, it will take up to a year for them to develop nuclear weapons, giving the rest of us time to stop them. The hope is that lifting sanctions will boost Irans economy, keeping them in line. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,782 Posted March 3, 2015 The reason Israelis do not trust Obungle is because he has done next to nothing for them. There is also a very strong anti-Israel sentiment on the left. Hard to blame any leader of a country for being angry when an ally is about to make a deal with a sworn enemy. A sworn enemy of both countries by the way. Obungle really wants that peace prize to mean something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted March 3, 2015 The reason Israelis do not trust Obungle is because he has done next to nothing for them. There is also a very strong anti-Israel sentiment on the left. Hard to blame any leader of a country for being angry when an ally is about to make a deal with a sworn enemy. A sworn enemy of both countries by the way. Obungle really wants that peace prize to mean something. You would be hard pressed to show me how our "alliance" with Israel has been any sort of benefit to the USA. They use us. What they do is make sure the donations from wealthy Jewish donors get in politicians hands. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 3, 2015 sounds like the dumbocrats are cranky up the fake outrage machine You mean like hacks claiming Obama is giving Iran a nuke? Yeah...its the dems cranking up the fake outrage. Ooof. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 3, 2015 i listened to it, he was very complimentary of the administration and the president Have listened yet...Im sure it was pretty good. Guy is a great speaker. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 3, 2015 You mean like hacks claiming Obama is giving Iran a nuke? Yeah...its the dems cranking up the fake outrage. Ooof. The agreement gives Iran free reign in 10 years to do whatever they want with their nuke program, Hackopotamus. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 3, 2015 I don't think you "stop" them per se, I think the hope is to delay as long as possible. JMHO If they are indeed close, then perhaps the tactic of sanctions, implicity then proven to be ineffective, must give way to a new approach, one that accepts their ownership of the technology and one that accomodates this ownership in such a way as to offer a path forward. You mean like Obama's plan is doing...delay them, claim you will give in if they cooperate...know we will find a way they didnt' cooperate after the 10 years and delay it more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted March 3, 2015 What exactly is Iran's obligation under Obama's "deal"? Iran gets sanctions lifted, and can keep their nuclear enrichment program, and even increase the number of centrifuges. Because of course, oil-rich Iran needs nuclear energy... The only obligation I can find through Google searches is "in exchange, the Iranians would undertake an obligation to bring their influence to bear in order to ensure quiet in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria." WTF? So they can build nuclear weapons if they promise to promote stability in the middle east? What kind of deal is that? Only if they follow through on certain things over the next 10 years...does anyone think the US won't find a way that they didn't follow through so we can keep delaying? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted March 3, 2015 I just don't see how we stop them if they want it. We didn't stop Pakistan or China or North Korea. Do we bomb them now? How does that guarantee they still won't get them? There are lots of critics here, and I get that, but does anyone have a good idea? This just looks like a lose-lose. Can we really expect in the modern world to keep this technology away from bad guys? I'm not saying give up, bomb them if they force our hand, but what does that accomplish, except to delay the inevitable? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,455 Posted March 3, 2015 You mean like Obama's plan is doing...delay them, claim you will give in if they cooperate...know we will find a way they didnt' cooperate after the 10 years and delay it more. If that is indeed his plan, then yes. Being pliable in ones strategy has shown time and again to deliver success, knowing when to adjust and react, and having the courage to do so is a hallmark of any high peforming military leader in particular Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GobbleDog 816 Posted March 3, 2015 Agreed - nuclear armed Iran is inevitable, along with a lot of other countries we'd rather not have them. It's just a matter of time. Unfortunately, it's also inevitable that the next insane/power-hungry Hitler persona will eventually come to power. It's actually amazing nukes haven't been used in so long considering how many countries now have them. If you'd asked people in 1945 how many more years it would be before the next nuke was used, I'd guess most people would've said "within 40 to 50 years or so.?." That probably would have been my guess. We're now going on 70 years. The deterrent factor definitely has played a part. My prediction is the next nuke will be used in suit-case style terrorism once technology permits... probably detonated inside Israel or US. Launching nukes from your own country is suicide at this point. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RLLD 3,455 Posted March 3, 2015 My prediction is the next nuke will be used in suit-case style terrorism once technology permits... probably detonated inside Israel or US. Launching nukes from your own country is suicide at this point. Fantastic..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baker Boy 1,485 Posted March 24, 2015 Unfortunately his plan is for a nuclear Iran to control the Middle East. Unfortunately it looks like I am correct on this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MDC 5,890 Posted March 24, 2015 Unfortunately it looks like I am correct on this. Whatever you say moonbat. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jerryskids 5,198 Posted March 25, 2015 Fantastic..... Yet true IMO. My concern with letting Iran have nukes is that the next regime might be crazier. But it is somewhat inevitable that they get them. To make it work, we need to let Iran know that such weapons are for deterrents only. If they deploy one, we are forced to conclude that they might use more and will have no choice but to turn Iran into a sheet of glass. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that the current administration can pull that message off. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 25, 2015 ThenIranian Assholetola was telling a crowd "Death to America" a couple days ago. Do we really think we can make a deal with someone like that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted March 25, 2015 ThenIranian Assholetola was telling a crowd "Death to America" a couple days ago. Do we really think we can make a deal with someone like that?words matter, unless spoken by radical Islamists Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flyfreak 84 Posted March 25, 2015 ThenIranian Assholetola was telling a crowd "Death to America" a couple days ago. Do we really think we can make a deal with someone like that? ironically, while thousands of iranians were chanting "death to america" obama and kerry were telling us how great relations are with iran and we will cut a deal with them to allow them nuke rights Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters said that Obama will do anything to make a deal with Iran. He charged the White House with trying to downplay Khamenei’s call for death to America. “You can’t believe a thing this White House says,” Peters said. “This is the White House and the president, Sean, who told us that the War on Terror was over, Islamic State was jayvee, Putin was in retreat, Yemen was a success story. This is a White House that lies to the American people, coddles our enemies.” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted March 25, 2015 words matter Bibi's Words 'Matter' to Obama, But the Ayatollah's Don't: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flyfreak 84 Posted March 25, 2015 words matter Bibi's Words 'Matter' to Obama, But the Ayatollah's Don't: obama suggests that the words "death to america" are aimed at an iranian domestic political audience hahahahahaha, wtf Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryHill9323 65 Posted March 25, 2015 obama suggests that the words "death to america" are aimed at an iranian domestic political audience hahahahahaha, wtf Must be a popular sentiment amongst the Iranian people then. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Flyfreak 84 Posted March 25, 2015 Must be a popular sentiment amongst the Iranian people then. listening to the spin doctors in this administration is like watching an episode of monday night raw Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 3,311 Posted March 25, 2015 I always thought Bibi was a pron star's name Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Magnificent Bastard 190 Posted March 25, 2015 ThenIranian Assholetola was telling a crowd "Death to America" a couple days ago. Do we really think we can make a deal with someone like that? And let's not forget John McCains "bomb bomb Iran" from the senate floor Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
