A peace for our time or a great deal?

Posted without additional comment...

Originally Posted by SD2011

Netanyahu should STFU about what he calls a bad deal

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

Reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's (and Clinton's) failed agreement with North Korea..........

Reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's (and Clinton's) failed agreement with North Korea.......... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

No.

Strong congressional

support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to any other countries; for

example, Israel can use some U.S. military assistance both for research and development in the

United States and for military purchases from Israeli manufacturers. In addition, U.S. assistance

earmarked for Israel is generally delivered in the first 30 days of the fiscal year, while most other

recipients normally receive aid in installments. In addition to receiving U.S. State Department administered

foreign assistance, Israel also receives funds from annual defense appropriations

bills for rocket and missile defense programs. Israel pursues some of those programs jointly with

the United States.

In 2007, the Bush Administration and the Israeli government agreed to a 10-year, $30 billion

Reagan had a chance to kick the shit out of Iran in 1983 when they killed 220 marines in Lebanon.. AN ACT OF WAR HE DID LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT.

that's who Originally Posted by CJ7

Oh but Reagan did reek vengeance, CBJ7 -- he used Iraq as his proxy to kill thousands of Iranians.

Reagan had a chance to kick the shit out of Iran in 1983 when they killed 220 marines in Lebanon.. AN ACT OF WAR HE DID LITTLE OR NOTHING ABOUT.

that's who Originally Posted by CJ7

Yeah, he should have retaliated against Hezbollah, I agree... You keep diverting the argument. We're talking about Iran 2013 and you say something as stupid as "this nuclear threat has been stuck in the throats of the right since Reagan..." WTF?

A nuclear Iran is a threat to all of us, moron. That includes libtards like you. It's not a right-left issue. Nothing to do with Reagan. Only an idiot would let biased and bitter old memories of the Gipper blind him to today's threats.

Yeah, he should have retaliated against Hezbollah, I agree... You keep diverting the argument. We're talking about Iran 2013 and you say something as stupid as "this nuclear threat has been stuck in the throats of the right since Reagan..." WTF?

A nuclear Iran is a threat to all of us, moron. That includes libtards like you. It's not a right-left issue. Nothing to do with Reagan. Only an idiot would let biased and bitter old memories of the Gipper blind him to today's threats. Originally Posted by lustylad

the threat has been a throat hocker since Reagan, then with Russia, now Its Iran .. Iran has been playing Nuke since the 50's. are they a threat now? Hell yes. If they enrich their 3.5%shit to 70% weapons grade, it'll take until late 2014 unless they screw up .. then they face the method of delivery problems LRM's ? nah... can they overcome the bumps? possibly. Will they start a war with a Nuke? Those raghead sobs may be a lot of things wrong in this world, but dumb enough to hammer Israel ain't one of them ... they just want the world to see them as a Nuclear power .. as a self defense mechanism ..even if they can touch one off more than likely it'll be underground ... maybe they will start an earthquake and suck themselves into the bowels of hell and save the world the trouble .,.. either way I say talk to them, Kerry and everything about him I don't like, PUNKED Iran with words, not wars

There are a billion Arabs in the world - .... Originally Posted by Bert Jones

Obaminable is not Persian.

Netanyahu should STFU about what he calls a bad dea Originally Posted by CJ7

He's living "in the neighborhood" .. you're not...

....... not to mention is personal experience over yours in that same "neighborhood.".

the threat has been a throat hocker since Reagan, then with Russia, now Its Iran .. Iran has been playing Nuke since the 50's. are they a threat now? Hell yes. If they enrich their 3.5%shit to 70% weapons grade, it'll take until late 2014 unless they screw up .. then they face the method of delivery problems LRM's ? nah... can they overcome the bumps? possibly. Will they start a war with a Nuke? Those raghead sobs may be a lot of things wrong in this world, but dumb enough to hammer Israel ain't one of them ... they just want the world to see them as a Nuclear power .. as a self defense mechanism ..even if they can touch one off more than likely it'll be underground ... maybe they will start an earthquake and suck themselves into the bowels of hell and save the world the trouble .,.. either way I say talk to them, Kerry and everything about him I don't like, PUNKED Iran with words, not wars Originally Posted by CJ7

So you don't see that what Ike did in the 50's was a pro-active measure to create a pro-Western government in Iran and that that effort was thwarted when Jimmy the Peanut dropped the ball, CBJ7?

BTW, at the time of the Beirut bombing, it was not known to what degree the U.S.S.R. was involved in the bombing -- the wrong overt action could have led to a nuclear war with a seriously, powerful nuclear capable nation.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Reagan traded arms with them you dumbshit.

Without the other side having nukes, would be my preference.

How about if "we" threaten to lob some missiles over there? Originally Posted by LexusLover

What's this "we" business, white man?

Reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's (and Clinton's) failed agreement with North Korea.......... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Nixon brought us China and Iran will be much the same. Nothing wrong with adding new trading partners. Korea will eventually merge into one country too. You cats are living in the past instead of learning from it.

Reagan traded arms with them you dumbshit. Originally Posted by WTF

shit like that doesn't count ... that was 1987, get a grip (eos)


http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/04/wo...agan-says.html

shit like that doesn't count ... that was 1987, get a grip (eos)


http://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/04/wo...agan-says.html Originally Posted by CJ7

Reagan was pragmatic but Obama is naïve ....according to our right wing war mongers.

Reagan traded arms with them you dumbshit. Originally Posted by WTF

Really, WTFuckhead? What was that about? Was he trying to discourage Iran's non-existent nuclear program 27 years ago? What the fuck does Iran-contra have to do with Iran 2013? Nada, zero, zilch. And why can't you and CBJ7 say anything intelligent in this thread? You know, talk about how this new deal enhances our national security or something instead of bringing up a dead President.

Btw, didn't you get the libtard memo? It says in case of emergency always blame Bush, not Reagan.