WHY IS OBAMA OPPOSING THE IRANIAN SANCTIONS TRIGGER?

Fuck, I agree with you. But, Whirlaway is just pointing out we need to project a little more strength. Perhaps we are all close to the same page.
In spite of this detente, Assup, don't send me anymore instant message, OK? Originally Posted by Jewish Lawyer

This "We need to project a little more strength" stuff cracks me up....we have been shooting up middle eastern countries for pretty close to 15 years now in one way or another. It's another mechanical recitation that the right wing robots like you, whirlytard and the admiral repeat ad nauseum with the rest of your clown posse nodding their idiotic noggins in agreement while utterly ignoring reality and the facts and history surrounding the subject.

Get it through your heads: Iran is run by a group of religious whackos. They're not going to respond to the sanctions that are being proposed, they are going to dig the fuck in. Frankly, I don't think negotiations are going to work either. They are determined to have a nuclear attack capability and unless we are willing to commit to a full scale ground invasion designed to accomplish regime change, Iran will be nuclear in the next few years.

The time that airstrikes by Israel would significantly degrade the Iranian nuclear program is over. They are bunkered up and impenetrable by airstrike. It is going to take US footprints in the sand.

No worries, JL.

He opposes automatic sanctions now because they are talking and have made significant progress. Some of the frustration on the Iranian side is that they have already made concessions that were supposed to trigger some sanction relief, but they haven't. We have not relented because we wanted to push them over the finish line to an agreement. Automatically putting more sanctions on now would mean that the Iranians would just walk.

While Iran can't affect us a lot directly, a war with Iran has the potential to trigger an all out Middle Eastern war, with Israel involved, which would mean we would be forced in. Also has the chance to draw in their proxies Russia and China. All with lots of unforeseen consequences. You know, the kind that happened when we last invaded the middle east and we were going to be "greeted as liberators" and "the war would pay for itself" and "it would be unlikely to last more than a month or two" and the fighters were a few "dead enders". Those kind of unforeseen circumstances.

That's why sanctions now (while negotiations are still going on) is a terrible idea. Sounds good. Nice on a bumper sticker, but a very bad idea if the objective is to get Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program.

This "We need to project a little more strength" stuff cracks me up....we have been shooting up middle eastern countries for pretty close to 15 years now in one way or another. It's another mechanical recitation that the right wing robots like you, whirlytard and the admiral repeat ad nauseum with the rest of your clown posse nodding their idiotic noggins in agreement while utterly ignoring reality and the facts and history surrounding the subject.

Get it through your heads: Iran is run by a group of religious whackos. They're not going to respond to the sanctions that are being proposed, they are going to dig the fuck in. Frankly, I don't think negotiations are going to work either. They are determined to have a nuclear attack capability and unless we are willing to commit to a full scale ground invasion designed to accomplish regime change, Iran will be nuclear in the next few years.

The time that airstrikes by Israel would significantly degrade the Iranian nuclear program is over. They are bunkered up and impenetrable by airstrike. It is going to take US footprints in the sand. Originally Posted by timpage

What are you, a left wing warmonger?
I'm supporting the position of the President of the United States, you unpatriotic cretin.

NO NUCLEAR IRAN... PERIOD!

Woops Mossad agrees with him. What now?

Obama, our supreme negotiator.............

Based on his track record, I wouldn't trust him to negotiate anything of importance.

Bo Berghdal
Gitmo releases
Cuba
Putin
Iraq SOFA
North Korea talks


You know that the same negotiators who brought us the failed "negotiations" with North Korea are now in charge of the negotiations with Iran! This is a wake up call to the Senate and the very reason for the sanctions trigger.

I don't think you understand. The Congress is not talking about putting sanctions on Iran DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS PROCESS. But sanctions will be triggered should Obama fail to get an agreement. That is a good thing.

And do you even understand what Obama is negotiating with Iran. It is NOT the elimination of their capability to break out as a nuclear power. It is to put in place warning bells, that will alert us should their nuclear programs get too close to having the bomb.

Why you trust Team Obama to undertake this kind of an agreement is stupefying. Obama has proven he is incapable of getting agreements that are in our interest.

He opposes automatic sanctions now because they are talking and have made significant progress. Some of the frustration on the Iranian side is that they have already made concessions that were supposed to trigger some sanction relief, but they haven't. We have not relented because we wanted to push them over the finish line to an agreement. Automatically putting more sanctions on now would mean that the Iranians would just walk.

While Iran can't affect us a lot directly, a war with Iran has the potential to trigger an all out Middle Eastern war, with Israel involved, which would mean we would be forced in. Also has the chance to draw in their proxies Russia and China. All with lots of unforeseen consequences. You know, the kind that happened when we last invaded the middle east and we were going to be "greeted as liberators" and "the war would pay for itself" and "it would be unlikely to last more than a month or two" and the fighters were a few "dead enders". Those kind of unforeseen circumstances.

That's why sanctions now (while negotiations are still going on) is a terrible idea. Sounds good. Nice on a bumper sticker, but a very bad idea if the objective is to get Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program. Originally Posted by Hatty242

He opposes automatic sanctions now because they are talking and have made significant progress. Some of the frustration on the Iranian side is that they have already made concessions that were supposed to trigger some sanction relief, but they haven't. We have not relented because we wanted to push them over the finish line to an agreement. Automatically putting more sanctions on now would mean that the Iranians would just walk.

While Iran can't affect us a lot directly, a war with Iran has the potential to trigger an all out Middle Eastern war, with Israel involved, which would mean we would be forced in. Also has the chance to draw in their proxies Russia and China. All with lots of unforeseen consequences. You know, the kind that happened when we last invaded the middle east and we were going to be "greeted as liberators" and "the war would pay for itself" and "it would be unlikely to last more than a month or two" and the fighters were a few "dead enders". Those kind of unforeseen circumstances.

That's why sanctions now (while negotiations are still going on) is a terrible idea. Sounds good. Nice on a bumper sticker, but a very bad idea if the objective is to get Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program. Originally Posted by Hatty242

Are you really that thick? Iran was given six months to make sense and sanctions were lifted. Now it is seven months later and they ask for six more months....and that idiot Obama is wanting to give it to them! So do we do this again in six months? Or just until Iran gets it's nuke.

Iran is a sponsor of terrorism. The same terrorism that came to us on 9/11. Whether someone in Iran gave the order or not they support the result.

Boots on the ground-right judy?

Obama, our supreme negotiator.............

Based on his track record, I wouldn't trust him to negotiate anything of importance.

Bo Berghdal
Gitmo releases
Cuba
Putin
Iraq SOFA
North Korea talks


You know that the same negotiators who brought us the failed "negotiations" with North Korea are now in charge of the negotiations with Iran! This is a wake up call to the Senate and the very reason for the sanctions trigger.

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

We got our guy back.

How long do you expect them to hold the people in Gitmo?

Cuba was the right call and you know you agree.

Yeah, things are working out well for Putin. Things are looking good in Russia. Remind me again of how that turned out badly for us? And, how much better it would have been if we had decided to risk war with Russia over some shithole countries whose names, existence and location are a mystery to at least 50% of Americans and probably a whole lot more?

What is your expectation in regard to any "negotiations" with North fucking Korea? I got three words ....

Who....fucking.....cares?

Your bizarre assertions crumble up like dry dog shit if you think about them for more than about 30 seconds. That's why you should stop listening to and reading your canned right wing whack shit 10 hours a day.

Tell me again....why is normalizing relations with Cuba a bad idea?

This is where you show your ignorance and stupidity in a single sentence.

I never said normalizing relations with Cuba is a bad idea. In fact, I think a change in our policy is over due. Something I have previously said.

But, the way Obama has handled it, without consulting Congress, the very bad deal he cut, and other aspects of the Obama fast track approach is wrong.

For example. As part of Obama's deal with Castro, the Cubans agreed to immediately release 53 political prisoners. They haven't. And yet Obama continues to pimp his negotiations as being a success. Team Obama won't even name the political prisoners it wants released.

Obama is trying to cement his legacy and rush deals that aren't in our favor.

Obama has proved he is an inept negotiator. It is laughable you keep defending him.

...

Tell me again....why is normalizing relations with Cuba a bad idea? Originally Posted by timpage

And let's not forget Obama's biggest (and most costly) failed negotiation. He didn't get (or want) a SOFA with Iraq.

Obama walked away from Iraq and ISIS walked in. Had Obama left a small US force in place, the scale of death, destruction and slavery brought on by ISIS would have never happened.

FACT JACK !

And let's not forget Obama's biggest (and most costly) failed negotiation. He didn't get (or want) a SOFA with Iraq.

Obama walked away from Iraq and ISIS walked in. Had Obama left a small US force in place, the scale of death, destruction and slavery brought on by ISIS would have never happened.

FACT JACK ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway

LMAO that dead horse again. If he left them there they would have fallen under Iraq judicial system. What was your stance on that? Several here would not state their position on that, but would keep bringing it up.

This is where you show your ignorance and stupidity in a single sentence.

I never said normalizing relations with Cuba is a bad idea. In fact, I think a change in our policy is over due. Something I have previously said.

But, the way Obama has handled it, without consulting Congress, the very bad deal he cut, and other aspects of the Obama fast track approach is wrong.

For example. As part of Obama's deal with Castro, the Cubans agreed to immediately release 53 political prisoners. They haven't. And yet Obama continues to pimp his negotiations as being a success. Team Obama won't even name the political prisoners it wants released.

Obama is trying to cement his legacy and rush deals that aren't in our favor.

Obama has proved he is an inept negotiator. It is laughable you keep defending him. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

What's laughable is your inability to articulate an original thought. Every fucking thing you post is gleaned from the right wing whacko narrative....with the approach being "if we say the same thing over and over and over again enough times, it must be true."

Well, fuck you, because it's not. Obama opened up Cuba. If he had consulted congress, that wouldn't have happened. Period. If you believe otherwise, you're an idiot.

As for Iraq, the place we never would have been in the first place but for your dunce Bush, I'll pose the same question I've been posing for the last five years....how long would you have us stay? Because in order to influence things in Iraq in the way you propose WE WOULD BE THERE FOR FUCKING EVER. Same in Afghanistan. Bottom line is something else I will repeat over and over and over....no US invasion of Iraq, no ISIS. Saddam would have squashed them like bugs. Law of unintended consequences especially when the original action (the invasion) was stupid, wrong and doomed to be a disaster from the very beginning. That's on you and the GOP neocons that started that war. Now, you bitch, whine and cry because apparently you want American blood and treasure spent on Iraq ad infinitum. Bullshit.

We're seeing the fastest economic growth right now for the last decade. Deficits being cut, stock market has doubled, health-care inflation at its lowest rate in memory, And what have the republicans done the last three weeks?

Let's review: attempted to pass legislation to deport children, teed up the old tried and true abortion bullshit and completely fucked that up, widened the rift between Israel and the US by violating long standing and well-known protocols on visits between world leaders and on and on and on......they are already showing that they are completely clueless about leading....the only thing you and the GOP know how to do is whine, cry and obstruct. You have no agenda, no policy, no nothing....

Fuck you and your bullshit failure narrative.