truth on hold Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) Will the GOP Kick It Away? by Patrick J. Buchanan, March 17, 2015 For the U.S. House to invite a foreign leader to come into its chambers and see that leader, on national television, mocking U.S. foreign policy to wild cheering was something few of us expected to see in our lifetimes. Came then the astonishing letter drafted by Tom Cotton, a 2-month-old senator who makes Ted Cruz look like Ramsey Clark, that was signed by 47 Republicans. Sent to the ayatollah and mullahs, the Cotton letter instructed Iran that any deal signed by Kerry might not be worth the paper it was written on. Congress could reject the deal, said the 47, and a new president in 2017 could cancel it with “the stroke of a pen.” The letter’s purpose was the same as Bibi’s purpose – to scuttle, sabotage and sink any U.S. nuclear deal with Iran. But if there is no deal and Iran returns to enriching uranium to 20 percent, we are on the road to war. Is this what America has to look forward to if it votes GOP? Another Middle Eastern war, with a country twice the size of Iraq, to strip the country of weapons of mass destruction it does not have? Didn’t we just do that at a cost of 4,500 dead, 35,000 wounded warriors and $1.7 trillion? http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2015/03/16/will-the-gop-kick-it-away/ Edited March 17, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I agree with some of what you're saying, especially regarding the Saudis, and to an extent with the Israeli settlements. All I am doing is separating those issues from the issue of a nuclear armed Iran. That doesn't mean that we have to view them in isolation, it only means that we are addressing one problem at a time, with urgency setting the priority. Iran scares me not at all. Who do concern me are characters like netanyhu and the saudi royal family who under the false pretext of being an ally ensnare US in conflicts not of our interest or makings, and waste American lives and dollars. Like 4,500 casualties in Iraq and more than $1.7 trillion of tax payer money Edited March 17, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Iran scares me not at all. Who do concern me are characters like netanyhu and the saudi royal family who under the false pretext of being an ally ensnare US in conflicts not of our interest or makings, and waste American lives and dollars. Like 4,500 casualties in Iraq and more than $1.7 trillion of tax payer money Iran doesn't scare you? You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) I guess it all depends how you define positive. From my perspective he and all he does is a negative but in his mind, it's pretty positive vibes. Take over the medical industry? Check Open the border to change the demographic so they can vote for the leftists and get on welfare to further stress the debt? Check Get the ball rolling on gun control. Check Destabilize the mideast to allow ISIS and the radicals to run rampant to eventually get us into another ground war? Check Government takeover of the internet? Check Instigate and divide whenever the opportunity arises like at Ferguson for the purpose of causing civil unrest? Check I'm sure I'm missing something but for Barry it's 6 years of productivity. take over the medical industry - with a GOP template. What do you want - people going bankrupt over medical bills, unable to access insurance because of pre-existing conditions, unable to get insurance? What is the TP/GOP plan for how HC should be delivered - and please be more specific than "free market" - I am sure you must have a link. Open the border - check your stats - also you do know you must be an american citizen to access benefits like welfare, SNAP, SS, healthcare right? - OF course you knew that. Destabilize the ME? Pretty sure that started in 2002 - or several hundred years ago.. Govt takeover of the internet - I honestly have no idea what the legislation will do - you probably don't either. You do understand what was going on at Ferguson - systematic targeting of poor - mostly black people - to fund the police department - but your cool with that? Gun control - where would that be? Pretty sure BO initiated nothing regarding gun control. Edited March 17, 2015 by baskin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Iran scares me not at all. Who do concern me are characters like netanyhu and the saudi royal family who under the false pretext of being an ally ensnare US in conflicts not of our interest or makings, and waste American lives and dollars. Like 4,500 casualties in Iraq and more than $1.7 trillion of tax payer money So you're not concerned at all about a nuclear Iran, because the machinations of Israel and the Saudis are responsible for our war in Iraq? Yeah, that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 (edited) So you're not concerned at all about a nuclear Iran, because the machinations of Israel and the Saudis are responsible for our war in Iraq? Yeah, that makes sense. no it wouldnt make sense, and its not what i said either. one mo' time, im not concerned about a tightly monitored iranian civilian use nuclear program. separately i am concerned with foreign actors who try to ensnare us in their conflicts. the related aspect is that right now israel's PM and the saudi royals are doing that wrt iran. Edited March 17, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 no it wouldnt make sense, and its not what i said either. one mo' time, im not concerned about a tightly monitored iranian civilian use nuclear program. separately i am concerned with foreign actors who try to ensnare us in their conflicts. the related aspect is that right now israel's PM and the saudi royals are doing that wrt iran. So you believe that Iran's nuclear ambitions are simply for energy and not for warheads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 So you believe that Iran's nuclear ambitions are simply for energy and not for warheads? Yes, and if that changed the odds of a tightly monitored program detecting it is far more likely than an unregulated program. Again, a point I have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Yes, and if that changed the odds of a tightly monitored program detecting it is far more likely than an unregulated program. Again, a point I have made. To all else: When you read this remember that it is from the same poster who believed there is no way Jerry Sandusky could possibly be guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Yes, and if that changed the odds of a tightly monitored program detecting it is far more likely than an unregulated program. Again, a point I have made. So an Islamic theocracy that refers to us as 'the great Satan', who vows to wipe Israel from the map, and happens to be an oil-rich country in addition to holding the 3rd largest oil reserves on Earth is developing nuclear technology for infrastructure and not for nuclear weapons? And you believe them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Yes, and if that changed the odds of a tightly monitored program detecting it is far more likely than an unregulated program. Again, a point I have made. Why do you believe that? In particular, why do you believe that when Iran has already admitted to enriching uranium to a point well beyond what's required for nuclear energy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 So an Islamic theocracy that refers to us as 'the great Satan', who vows to wipe Israel from the map, and happens to be an oil-rich country in addition to holding the 3rd largest oil reserves on Earth is developing nuclear technology for infrastructure and not for nuclear weapons? And you believe them? I think this is a roundabout way for him to support the destruction of Israel. He can claim ignorance that he didn't know that the Iranians would attack Israel because "they promised," wink wink wink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 I think this is a roundabout way for him to support the destruction of Israel. He can claim ignorance that he didn't know that the Iranians would attack Israel because "they promised," wink wink wink. They wouldn't attack Israel because Israel has nukes too. Hello? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 They wouldn't attack Israel because Israel has nukes too. Hello? Guarantee that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 They wouldn't attack Israel because Israel has nukes too. Hello? This is so true. Level heads will prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 They wouldn't attack Israel because Israel has nukes too. Hello? Yup... because Iran/Hamas has never shown a proclivity for martyrdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 They wouldn't attack Israel because Israel has nukes too. Hello? I can think of three different reasons it makes sense for Iran to attack Israel specifically because Israel has nukes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Warriors in the Wings by Jonah Goldberg I constantly hear critics of the GOP approach to Iran in general, and the Cotton 47 in particular, say that the choice is between a deal and war. White House flacks say it. Liberal pundits say it. Obama has said that the Menendez bill (a Democrat for the record) amounted to a march toward war. Does anyone actually believe this? The unstated implication is that if Obama doesn’t get a deal, we’ll have no other choice but to go to war with Iran. Does anyone believe Obama will go to war with Iran? Anyone? Anyone? Today on Morning Joe Mika Brzezinski went after Ted Cruz: “I’m still talk about the fact that you are saying to me that what’s happening now in terms of the hardliners using the letter to stall on these negotiations was actually a part of your intention,” Brzezinski said. “It just seems extremely destructive. …I think it’s not inappropriate for Congress to have a say and to have a voice. But to interfere with a negotiation with Iran, and to actually possibly even undermine a deal in the making — basically the next step to that is to just get right down the road to war.” Joe Scarborough intervened to explain that was a false choice, and he’s right. But I have to wonder if all of these people using this talking point understand that it is a false choice. Let’s say the talks in Switzerland fall apart. I have a very, very, very hard time imagining Brzezinski declaring, with grave regret of course, “Well, we have no choice now. It’s war.” I expect these talks to fail. It will be interesting to see if any of the people who offered this false choice will stand by their claims when that happens. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Yup... because Iran/Hamas has never shown a proclivity for martyrdom. The leaders of that country? Come on, that's silly. And Bush will go out looking for WMD himself! Lol. Also, Iran will have the bomb someday, just a matter of time unless we invade or something I can think of three different reasons it makes sense for Iran to attack Israel specifically because Israel has nukes. Ok Warriors in the Wings by Jonah Goldberg I constantly hear critics of the GOP approach to Iran in general, and the Cotton 47 in particular, say that the choice is between a deal and war. White House to wonder if all of these people using this talking point understand that it is a false choice.[/b] Let’s say the talks in Switzerland fall apart. I have a very, very, very hard time imagining Brzezinski declaring, with grave regret of course, “Well, we have no choice now. It’s war.” I expect these talks to fail. It will be interesting to see if any of the people who offered this false choice will stand by their claims when that happens. Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner I know complicated thoughts are real difficult for you, but maybe Obama is making it harder for the next president to come up with a cause bella? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 The leaders of that country? Come on, that's silly. And Bush will go out looking for WMD himself! Lol. Also, Iran will have the bomb someday, just a matter of time unless we invade or something Ok I know complicated thoughts are real difficult for you, but maybe Obama is making it harder for the next president to come up with a cause bella? Good God...you're even a !@#$ing idiot in other languages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts