Obama General Discussion, vol. 5

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Mt. McKinley in Alaska is the highest peak in North America, named after U. S. President McKinley, Republican.

Now, Obama has renamed it Denali. The arrogance!!!

Kenyan tribal name??
 
Now, Obama has renamed it Denali. The arrogance!!!



Kenyan tribal name??


I saw a Facebook "friend" today post about how they thought this was a nod to GM. This was not a joke, and this person does not do irony. This is how I found out about the story.

I wonder what Palin's spin will be?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
TRUMP! was saying something the other day to the extent that if someone were to attack Iran, in accordance with this deal, the United States would have to defend them. I don't even know if this is true or not...
 
Only 21% of Americans support the Iran deal. It seems very lopsided to me.

Well, the anti-deal propaganda has been strong before anyone even knew any details of the deal. Truly, it seems that many Republicans seem opposed to any diplomacy with Iran. And I would wager that most of the Americans opposed to the deal know very little about the actual specifics of it.

We get very little out of it.

Says who?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.672241

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...53aaae-2c92-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html
 
TRUMP! was saying something the other day to the extent that if someone were to attack Iran, in accordance with this deal, the United States would have to defend them. I don't even know if this is true or not...

In July Secretary Kerry testified that the United States might have a role in protecting Iran's nuclear program from cyber attacks, but not physical attacks.

When pressed on the possibility of a cyber attack on Iran from a country like Israel, Kerry didn't give a direct answer. Remember Stuxnet?
 
Well, the anti-deal propaganda has been strong before anyone even knew any details of the deal. Truly, it seems that many Republicans seem opposed to any diplomacy with Iran. And I would wager that most of the Americans opposed to the deal know very little about the actual specifics of it.
Says who?

I respect your intelligence and the links you provided good context to the deal as it is written. I don't want to get into a link battle, but there are just as many credible articles that take the opposing viewpoint. Thus my claim of a lopsided deal. And these aren't articles from say conservative circles such as Nat'l Review, Weekly Standard, or Breitbart.

Is it wrong to negotiate? Absolutely not, trying to defuse the nuclear stand-off with Iran has been an on-going issue over several administrations.

In 2009 Iran walked away from a deal in Geneva that would have given them civilian fuel enriched outside of the country for peaceful energy purposes. Since then they have tirelessly played a cat and mouse game with the IAEA getting moving production to secret-military locations. One can only conclude from these actions and proclaimed aspirations that they do want the bomb and have already become experts at concealment from inspectors. Under the new plan a side-deal with the IAEA would allow Iran's own nuclear experts to carry out their own inspections. This seems like a step-backwards if we seek more stringency in the inspection game.

It's not just Republicans who are opposed. Take Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who summed his opposition with the following quote.

"Of course if the Iranians violate the agreement and try to make a dash for a nuclear bomb, our solace will be that we will have a year's notice instead of the present three months. So in reality we have purchased a very expensive alarm system. Maybe we’ll have an additional nine months, but with much greater consequences in the enemy we might face at that time."
 
I respect your intelligence and the links you provided good context to the deal as it is written. I don't want to get into a link battle, but there are just as many credible articles that take the opposing viewpoint. Thus my claim of a lopsided deal. And these aren't articles from say conservative circles such as Nat'l Review, Weekly Standard, or Breitbart.



Is it wrong to negotiate? Absolutely not, trying to defuse the nuclear stand-off with Iran has been an on-going issue over several administrations.



In 2009 Iran walked away from a deal in Geneva that would have given them civilian fuel enriched outside of the country for peaceful energy purposes. Since then they have tirelessly played a cat and mouse game with the IAEA getting moving production to secret-military locations. One can only conclude from these actions and proclaimed aspirations that they do want the bomb and have already become experts at concealment from inspectors. Under the new plan a side-deal with the IAEA would allow Iran's own nuclear experts to carry out their own inspections. This seems like a step-backwards if we seek more stringency in the inspection game.



It's not just Republicans who are opposed. Take Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who summed his opposition with the following quote.



"Of course if the Iranians violate the agreement and try to make a dash for a nuclear bomb, our solace will be that we will have a year's notice instead of the present three months. So in reality we have purchased a very expensive alarm system. Maybe we’ll have an additional nine months, but with much greater consequences in the enemy we might face at that time."


I haven't seen many credible articles as you state.

So what part of Menendez' summary makes sense to you? So we make a deal where we have a built in "alarm", but what do you see as an alternative? War? Wouldn't you want an alarm than no warning?!


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Last edited:
My first question about the Iran nuke deal is whether there are any penalties imposed on Iran if they break the rules?
Basically Iran gets a slap on the wrist and moves on if they violate the contract and if it's only a small-mid size violation, nothing will happen at all. Moreover, they get a maximum of 24 days to delay an inspection. A lot of cover up can happen in 24 days, this gives the leverage to Iran.
Furthermore, the U.S. is agreeing to helping Iran progress as a nation, yet they are unwilling to progress in their treatment of people. Women still won't have rights, gays and Christians will still get executed, and they will continue to hate us and Israel. Yet, we're committed to help assist in developing their energy, finance, technology, and trade. That will only make Iran stronger 15 years from now. They chant "death to America", yet America is supporting them. Makes no sense whatsoever. If you want to continue to weaken stability in the Middle East, then this deal would be great.
So in the short run, it may temporarily ease the threat of nuclear war, but Iran isn't going to suddenly start loving America more 15 years from now and they'll be even stronger because of us.
How exactly does America benefit from this?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Well, the anti-deal propaganda has been strong before anyone even knew any details of the deal. Truly, it seems that many Republicans seem opposed to any diplomacy with Iran. And I would wager that most of the Americans opposed to the deal know very little about the actual specifics of it.

Wager accepted :eyebrow:

Unfortunately all academic at this point.
 
Back
Top Bottom