ADVERTISEMENT

Scott Walker-screw our European allies, I will blow up Iran deal

THE_DEVIL

HB King
Gold Member
Aug 16, 2005
66,123
82,940
113
Hell, Michigan
www.livecoinwatch.com
Scott Walker: I'll blow up any Iran deal, no matter what our European allies think
This is driven home by a new interview that Scott Walker gave to a Wisconsin radio personality, in which he said that not only would he undo any deal with Iran on his first day as president; he would do so even if our European allies wanted the deal to continue.
Walker had this happened:
SYKES: You have said that you would cancel any Iranian deal the Obama administration makes. Now would you cancel that even if our trading partners did not want to reimpose the sanctions?
WALKER: Absolutely. If I ultimately choose to run, and if I'm honored to be elected by the people of this country, I will pull back on that on January 20, 2017, because the last thing - not just for the region but for this world - we need is a nuclear-armed Iran. It leaves not only problems for Israel, because they want to annihilate Israel, it leaves the problems in the sense that the Saudis, the Jordanians and others are gonna want to have access to their own nuclear weapons…[/QUOTE]
In this scenario, of course, the European countries would still see continuing the deal as the best way to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. But that wouldn't matter - Walker would pull the U.S. out of the deal, anyway. I asked Peter Juul, a Mideast analyst for the Center for American Progress, to explain what the consequences of that might be. He told me:
"The big questions would be, How would Europeans and Iranians react? It's hard to believe that the Iranians would stick to their end of the deal. That would leave Iran open to take their nuclear program as far as they want.
"The Europeans would probably try to keep their portion of the deal in place and try to salvage it. This would place the burden of having blown up the deal on us. This would be particularly ironic, considering that a major Republican and conservative talking point is that the Obama administration is breaking faith with our allies. We would be alienating and breaking faith with our European allies right out of the gate. You'd be irreparably damaging our transatlantic relationships for however long Scott Walker were in office.
"Putin is not going to leave power anytime soon, unless he keels over. For all the talk about the Russian threat, it would be odd to throw our European allies under the bus on Iran at the same time they are facing down a Russia that is not particularly friendly.[/QUOTE]

This post was edited on 4/2 7:16 PM by THE_DEVIL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/04/02/scott-walker-ill-blow-up-any-iran-deal-no-matter-what-our-european-allies-think/?tid=trending_strip_3
 
It appears things are going so well - I can't imagine why anyone would think this isn't going to be a wonderful deal for all.

Iran Accuses U.S. of Lying About New Nuke Agreement



Says White House misleading Congress, American people with fact sheet


LAUSANNE, Switzerland - Just hours after the announcement of what the United States characterized as a historic agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the country's leading negotiator lashed out at the Obama administration for lying about the details of a tentative framework.

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif accused the Obama administration of misleading the American people and Congress in a fact sheet it released following the culmination of negotiations with the Islamic Republic.


This post was edited on 4/2 8:48 PM by Metuo Accipiter
 
You worry about Walker, yet the Iranians are telling Obama he spoke too soon and there is no deal. Obama has the deal-making abilities of a third grader.

This administration is a global embarrassment.
 
The real story is that someday Israel will blow up
Iran. Iran wants to eliminate the nation of Israel,
so Israel will need to get to Iran first.
 
Originally posted by THE_DEVIL:
Oh I see. The Iranians are trusty worthy NOW...
Wrong. They NEVER have been trust-worthy yet Obama thinks he can make them so. He's a fool. They've never done what they said they were going to do…..NEVER.
 
My impression is that Iran wants to get hard sanctions removed, and is playing for time until they get their nukes.

Anybody disagree?

I also think there is a strong possibility that Israel would act unilaterally, and bomb Iranian targets whether we like it or not.
 
That nutjob might actually cause me to forget about principle and vote in the coming presidential elections.
 
No one on the right on this board wants to talk about the substance of that idiot Walker's comments. He hasn't seen the final deal. That doesn't matter. It is completely irrelevant how good the final deal is. He says that on day one of his presidency he walks away from the final result. Then, even if every other country in the world trades with Iran, we unilaterally implement sanctions that will have absolutely no effect on the country. None. Zero.

Moron. Absolutely no clue on foreign relations. This reminds of North Korea over and over. Clinton had a deal with their regime and they didn't develop nuclear weapons. GWB is elected and starts his axis of evil nonsense and paranoia takes over in Pyongyang. Boom, they now have enough plutonium for 6-7 bombs.

Contrary to Republican dogma, the best deal you can get is better than no deal. No deal let's Iran get a bomb without restrictions.
 
Originally posted by theiacowtipper:

No one on the right on this board wants to talk about the substance of that idiot Walker's comments.
They didn't care when 47 Republicans committed treason by sending the original letter to the Iranians, so what makes you think they care about Walker's comments? They'll stand behind anything the Republicans do or say. You have to give them some credit for being so consistent.
 
Originally posted by rchawk:
My impression is that Iran wants to get hard sanctions removed, and is playing for time until they get their nukes.

Anybody disagree?

I also think there is a strong possibility that Israel would act unilaterally, and bomb Iranian targets whether we like it or not.
How will this play out? First we now have our inspectors on sight, so that will make getting their nukes harder, not easier, right? Then their nuke facilities are so far underground, they can't be bombed out of existance, but we just got the keys and get to put cameras in there. If they were just biding time they would have stalled on the deal, because they are very close to having them now. If we agree they want the sanctions lifted, developing nukes isn't compatible with that goal.
 
Originally posted by rchawk:
My impression is that Iran wants to get hard sanctions removed, and is playing for time until they get their nukes.

Anybody disagree?

I also think there is a strong possibility that Israel would act unilaterally, and bomb Iranian targets whether we like it or not.
The one thing a Republican administration would do would be to give Israel a green light to defend them selves as they see fit and that might mean to hit Iran. Another thing this deal guarantees is an arms race in the mid east. That cannot be good for the world
 
Originally posted by aflachawk:

Originally posted by rchawk:
My impression is that Iran wants to get hard sanctions removed, and is playing for time until they get their nukes.

Anybody disagree?

I also think there is a strong possibility that Israel would act unilaterally, and bomb Iranian targets whether we like it or not.
The one thing a Republican administration would do would be to give Israel a green light to defend them selves as they see fit and that might mean to hit Iran. Another thing this deal guarantees is an arms race in the mid east. That cannot be good for the world
I interpret your first sentence as saying that you believe that a Republican president will support another war in the middle east, not seek to avoid another war in the middle east. In your opinion, how will this deal guarantee an arms race? Because it will try to eliminate nuclear arms so both sides will seek more conventional arms?
 
This from President Obama's speech in the rose garden, ""When you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question," Obama said. "Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world's major powers is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?"

The only realistic alternative to this deal is war with Iran. Is that preferable?
 
Originally posted by theiacowtipper:


This from President Obama's speech in the rose garden, ""When you hear the inevitable critics of the deal sound off, ask them a simple question," Obama said. "Do you really think that this verifiable deal, if fully implemented, backed by the world's major powers is a worse option than the risk of another war in the Middle East?"

The only realistic alternative to this deal is war with Iran. Is that preferable?
Our cons will say those aren't the only 2 options. They seem to think that we could get exactly what we want if only John McCain or Mittens was president. Imagine what wet dreams they would have if Bibi could run for President here.

Needless to say, they are delusional.

Of course it isn't a done deal yet. So who knows whether we'll actually end up with a decent agreement?

If we ever learn the actual terms of the deal, we will probably see things we don't like. But the glimpses we are getting of those terms sound an order of magnitude better than the status quo - for all parties. If we can make it better from our point of view by the time the dust settles, great. But even a somewhat weaker deal would still be better than what we have now.
 
I find it ironic that we now evidently trust Iran.

If my memory is correct, hasn't this nuke issue been going on for about a decade or more, and they more or less turned away every inspector we ever sent over there via prior negotiations and deals?

That Iran is who we're trusting?


I dunno...the fact you have Iran (dominantly Shi'a, biggest Shi'a country in ME)...and most of the rest of the Middle East Sunni - they HATE each other passionately...it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see why nukes would be a big deal for Iran. And an even bigger deal to everybody else...and I'm not really even talking about Israel.

That whole region is such a cluster...just GTFO and let them continue to weaken themselves with the religious in-fighting.

I bet the House of Saud really loves us right about now...
 
Originally posted by bagdropper:

I find it ironic that we now evidently trust Iran.

If my memory is correct, hasn't this nuke issue been going on for about a decade or more, and they more or less turned away every inspector we ever sent over there via prior negotiations and deals?

That Iran is who we're trusting?


I dunno...the fact you have Iran (dominantly Shi'a, biggest Shi'a country in ME)...and most of the rest of the Middle East Sunni - they HATE each other passionately...it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see why nukes would be a big deal for Iran. And an even bigger deal to everybody else...and I'm not really even talking about Israel.

That whole region is such a cluster...just GTFO and let them continue to weaken themselves with the religious in-fighting.

I bet the House of Saud really loves us right about now...
There is no trust involved. If they turn away the inspectors, they don't get sanctions lifted. If they cheat later in the deal, the sanctions get slapped back on. This is a good deal, a Reaganesque deal.
 
He's worried about Scott Walker.

Meanwhile -- as a blogger said, wish it had been me -- Obama has been sacked for a safety and he's doing a celebratory dance in the end zone.
 
Originally posted by Lone Clone:
He's worried about Scott Walker.

Meanwhile -- as a blogger said, wish it had been me -- Obama has been sacked for a safety and he's doing a celebratory dance in the end zone.
Don't sell yourself short, that phrase is too stupid for you to have homo-erotica dreams about having a blogger inside of you.


p1Mu1goNg
 
Originally posted by bagdropper:

I find it ironic that we now evidently trust Iran.

If my memory is correct, hasn't this nuke issue been going on for about a decade or more, and they more or less turned away every inspector we ever sent over there via prior negotiations and deals?

That Iran is who we're trusting?


I dunno...the fact you have Iran (dominantly Shi'a, biggest Shi'a country in ME)...and most of the rest of the Middle East Sunni - they HATE each other passionately...it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see why nukes would be a big deal for Iran. And an even bigger deal to everybody else...and I'm not really even talking about Israel.

That whole region is such a cluster...just GTFO and let them continue to weaken themselves with the religious in-fighting.

I bet the House of Saud really loves us right about now...
Meanwhile the wingnuts over there are saying exactly the same thing over trusting the US.

Let's not forget that we are the ones who overthrew their elected leader and installed a military dictator. We are the ones who armed Saddam to fight against them and are arming their current regional competition. We are the one who imposed sanctions. We are the ones to directed cyber-attacks against them.

The oddest thing about this deal - if it happens - is that they would be willing to trust us.
 
Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Originally posted by bagdropper:

I find it ironic that we now evidently trust Iran.

If my memory is correct, hasn't this nuke issue been going on for about a decade or more, and they more or less turned away every inspector we ever sent over there via prior negotiations and deals?

That Iran is who we're trusting?


I dunno...the fact you have Iran (dominantly Shi'a, biggest Shi'a country in ME)...and most of the rest of the Middle East Sunni - they HATE each other passionately...it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see why nukes would be a big deal for Iran. And an even bigger deal to everybody else...and I'm not really even talking about Israel.

That whole region is such a cluster...just GTFO and let them continue to weaken themselves with the religious in-fighting.

I bet the House of Saud really loves us right about now...
Meanwhile the wingnuts over there are saying exactly the same thing over trusting the US.

Let's not forget that we are the ones who overthrew their elected leader and installed a military dictator. We are the ones who armed Saddam to fight against them and are arming their current regional competition. We are the one who imposed sanctions. We are the ones to directed cyber-attacks against them.

The oddest thing about this deal - if it happens - is that they would be willing to trust us.
This would be very effective if you'd somehow learn to stop making "the wingnuts" your enemy. If these two sides don't learn to unite (on the average-citizen level), things will just get worse and worse. Those people who are in poer, and exploit poor people over there and over here, will just keep right on doing that.
 
Originally posted by fsu1jreed:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
He's worried about Scott Walker.

Meanwhile -- as a blogger said, wish it had been me -- Obama has been sacked for a safety and he's doing a celebratory dance in the end zone.
Don't sell yourself short, that phrase is too stupid for you to have homo-erotica dreams about having a blogger inside of you.


p1Mu1goNg
Was that supposed to mean something?
 
Regardless of the dog and pony show displayed for all the world to see, Washington will bomb and/or invade Iran. The decision to do so was decided over 20 years ago.

The West has been hyping the nuclear thing for 30 years now. Even though US/Israel intel have said otherwise. It's a game played out to condition the masses for war. Many are now convinced that Iran is the bad guy and must be stopped.

A headline on CNN this morning asked, "Can Iran Be Trusted?". I almost fell over. Politicians in DC asked Libya to disarm and then bombed the crapped out of them. The question that should have been asked is, "Can the whores in DC be trusted? Don't get all jingoistic on me now. You Dems know you can't trust the R's and vice versa. So, why should we trust them against others? We know our leaders lied us into the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars. We know that the Gulf of Tonkin was a charade to escalate Vietnam. We know Dean Acheson said the only reason we fought in Korea was to validate NATO. We know Henry Stimson's diary read of his talks with FDR on how to maneuver Japan into firing the 1st shot at Pearl Harbor. Why do you allow yourselves to be duped? again? and again?
 
Originally posted by strummingram:
Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Originally posted by bagdropper:

I find it ironic that we now evidently trust Iran.

If my memory is correct, hasn't this nuke issue been going on for about a decade or more, and they more or less turned away every inspector we ever sent over there via prior negotiations and deals?

That Iran is who we're trusting?


I dunno...the fact you have Iran (dominantly Shi'a, biggest Shi'a country in ME)...and most of the rest of the Middle East Sunni - they HATE each other passionately...it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see why nukes would be a big deal for Iran. And an even bigger deal to everybody else...and I'm not really even talking about Israel.

That whole region is such a cluster...just GTFO and let them continue to weaken themselves with the religious in-fighting.

I bet the House of Saud really loves us right about now...
Meanwhile the wingnuts over there are saying exactly the same thing over trusting the US.

Let's not forget that we are the ones who overthrew their elected leader and installed a military dictator. We are the ones who armed Saddam to fight against them and are arming their current regional competition. We are the one who imposed sanctions. We are the ones to directed cyber-attacks against them.

The oddest thing about this deal - if it happens - is that they would be willing to trust us.
This would be very effective if you'd somehow learn to stop making "the wingnuts" your enemy. If these two sides don't learn to unite (on the average-citizen level), things will just get worse and worse. Those people who are in poer, and exploit poor people over there and over here, will just keep right on doing that.
I was talking about the wingnuts over there. While I agree with you (and Nader and others) that there is a lot common ground that left and right here ought to be able to unite on, this doesn't seem to be one of those cases. I could be wrong.
 
Originally posted by fredjr82:

Originally posted by theiacowtipper:

No one on the right on this board wants to talk about the substance of that idiot Walker's comments.
They didn't care when 47 Republicans committed treason by sending the original letter to the Iranians, so what makes you think they care about Walker's comments? They'll stand behind anything the Republicans do or say. You have to give them some credit for being so consistent.
Treason? Seriously?
 
Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by fsu1jreed:

Originally posted by Lone Clone:
He's worried about Scott Walker.

Meanwhile -- as a blogger said, wish it had been me -- Obama has been sacked for a safety and he's doing a celebratory dance in the end zone.
Don't sell yourself short, that phrase is too stupid for you to have homo-erotica dreams about having a blogger inside of you.


p1Mu1goNg
Was that supposed to mean something?
I figured the Caddy Shack reference would give it away, but apparently no one got it. Chevy was always telling the Judge "not to sell himself short"..........and that's why I don't make a living as a comedian.
 
Originally posted by Panic1769:

Originally posted by fredjr82:

Originally posted by theiacowtipper:

No one on the right on this board wants to talk about the substance of that idiot Walker's comments.
They didn't care when 47 Republicans committed treason by sending the original letter to the Iranians, so what makes you think they care about Walker's comments? They'll stand behind anything the Republicans do or say. You have to give them some credit for being so consistent.
Treason? Seriously?
Boehner said it was treason for Congresspeople to call for a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq. Of course when Bush proposed just such a timeline a few months later, it was crickets.

One man's treason....
 
Originally posted by Nat Algren:
Regardless of the dog and pony show displayed for all the world to see, Washington will bomb and/or invade Iran. The decision to do so was decided over 20 years ago.

The West has been hyping the nuclear thing for 30 years now. Even though US/Israel intel have said otherwise. It's a game played out to condition the masses for war. Many are now convinced that Iran is the bad guy and must be stopped.

A headline on CNN this morning asked, "Can Iran Be Trusted?". I almost fell over. Politicians in DC asked Libya to disarm and then bombed the crapped out of them. The question that should have been asked is, "Can the whores in DC be trusted? Don't get all jingoistic on me now. You Dems know you can't trust the R's and vice versa. So, why should we trust them against others? We know our leaders lied us into the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars. We know that the Gulf of Tonkin was a charade to escalate Vietnam. We know Dean Acheson said the only reason we fought in Korea was to validate NATO. We know Henry Stimson's diary read of his talks with FDR on how to maneuver Japan into firing the 1st shot at Pearl Harbor. Why do you allow yourselves to be duped? again? and again?
You ever worry about the tinfoil supply running short?
 
Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Originally posted by Panic1769:

Treason? Seriously?
Boehner said it was treason for Congresspeople to call for a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq. Of course when Bush proposed just such a timeline a few months later, it was crickets.

One man's treason....
Boehner should know this, but technically for anything to be treason, congress would first need to find the courage to live up to its constitutional duty to declare war. That said, trying to sabotage peace talks certainly seems in the spirit of treason. Certainly more so than trying to start peace talks IMO. It's also sort of fun that the congress who is afraid to vote for war, wants to have a say in peace negotiations.
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:

Originally posted by What Would Jesus Do?:
Originally posted by Panic1769:

Treason? Seriously?
Boehner said it was treason for Congresspeople to call for a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq. Of course when Bush proposed just such a timeline a few months later, it was crickets.

One man's treason....
Boehner should know this, but technically for anything to be treason, congress would first need to find the courage to live up to its constitutional duty to declare war. That said, trying to sabotage peace talks certainly seems in the spirit of treason. Certainly more so than trying to start peace talks IMO. It's also sort of fun that the congress who is afraid to vote for war, wants to have a say in peace negotiations.
Well put.
 
Walker will say anything if he thinks it will get him elected...except that he believes in evolution.
 
Originally posted by theiacowtipper:

No one on the right on this board wants to talk about the substance of that idiot Walker's comments.  He hasn't seen the final deal.  That doesn't matter.  It is completely irrelevant how good the final deal is.  He says that on day one of his presidency he walks away from the final result.  Then, even if every other country in the world trades with Iran, we unilaterally implement sanctions that will have absolutely no effect on the country.  None.  Zero. 

Moron. Absolutely no clue on foreign relations.  This reminds of North Korea over and over.  Clinton had a deal with their regime and they didn't develop nuclear weapons.  GWB is elected and starts his axis of evil nonsense and paranoia takes over in Pyongyang.  Boom, they now have enough plutonium for 6-7 bombs. 

Contrary to Republican dogma, the best deal you can get is better than no deal.  No deal let's Iran get a bomb without restrictions. 
No deal is better than a bad deal. What we should do in the event of no deal is ratchet up the sanctions. Make their countries sanctions like South Africa. That would have the best chance to succeed. Why do you think their even at the table? These sanctions hurt their economy very much. Make them even worse and see what happens.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by fsu1jreed:


Originally posted by Lone Clone:


Originally posted by fsu1jreed:


Originally posted by Lone Clone:
He's worried about Scott Walker.

Meanwhile -- as a blogger said, wish it had been me -- Obama has been sacked for a safety and he's doing a celebratory dance in the end zone.
Don't sell yourself short, that phrase is too stupid for you to have homo-erotica dreams about having a blogger inside of you.


p1Mu1goNg
Was that supposed to mean something?
I figured the Caddy Shack reference would give it away, but apparently no one got it. Chevy was always telling the Judge "not to sell himself short"..........and that's why I don't make a living as a comedian.
He said it once in the locker room. "Always" doesn't apply.
 
Originally posted by aflachawk:
Originally posted by theiacowtipper:

No one on the right on this board wants to talk about the substance of that idiot Walker's comments. He hasn't seen the final deal. That doesn't matter. It is completely irrelevant how good the final deal is. He says that on day one of his presidency he walks away from the final result. Then, even if every other country in the world trades with Iran, we unilaterally implement sanctions that will have absolutely no effect on the country. None. Zero.Â

Moron. Absolutely no clue on foreign relations. This reminds of North Korea over and over. Clinton had a deal with their regime and they didn't develop nuclear weapons. GWB is elected and starts his axis of evil nonsense and paranoia takes over in Pyongyang. Boom, they now have enough plutonium for 6-7 bombs.Â

Contrary to Republican dogma, the best deal you can get is better than no deal. No deal let's Iran get a bomb without restrictions.Â
No deal is better than a bad deal. What we should do in the event of no deal is ratchet up the sanctions. Make their countries sanctions like South Africa. That would have the best chance to succeed. Why do you think their even at the table? These sanctions hurt their economy very much. Make them even worse and see what happens.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Wrong. You get an agreement, follow through with inspections, etc. and if they don't comply you fall back on sanctions.
 
Originally posted by Kelsers:
Originally posted by aflachawk:

No deal is better than a bad deal. What we should do in the event of no deal is ratchet up the sanctions. Make their countries sanctions like South Africa. That would have the best chance to succeed. Why do you think their even at the table? These sanctions hurt their economy very much. Make them even worse and see what happens.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Wrong. You get an agreement, follow through with inspections, etc. and if they don't comply you fall back on sanctions.
+1

Not only is this the best way forward, it's also the only way that we could ever get the sort of stricter sanctions aflac wants should they be required. The U.S. doesn't run he world, the sanctions must be international to work and the world says aflac'so deal doesn't work for them at this time.
 
Originally posted by Lone Clone:

Originally posted by Nat Algren:
Regardless of the dog and pony show displayed for all the world to see, Washington will bomb and/or invade Iran. The decision to do so was decided over 20 years ago.

The West has been hyping the nuclear thing for 30 years now. Even though US/Israel intel have said otherwise. It's a game played out to condition the masses for war. Many are now convinced that Iran is the bad guy and must be stopped.

A headline on CNN this morning asked, "Can Iran Be Trusted?". I almost fell over. Politicians in DC asked Libya to disarm and then bombed the crapped out of them. The question that should have been asked is, "Can the whores in DC be trusted? Don't get all jingoistic on me now. You Dems know you can't trust the R's and vice versa. So, why should we trust them against others? We know our leaders lied us into the 1st and 2nd Gulf Wars. We know that the Gulf of Tonkin was a charade to escalate Vietnam. We know Dean Acheson said the only reason we fought in Korea was to validate NATO. We know Henry Stimson's diary read of his talks with FDR on how to maneuver Japan into firing the 1st shot at Pearl Harbor. Why do you allow yourselves to be duped? again? and again?
You ever worry about the tinfoil supply running short?
Never. However, I worry constantly about the Rush Limbaugh types who march lockstep with their party leadership right into the ovens. They resort to ad hominem because they are intellectually bankrupt. Consider yourself in this category. Your lame attempt to smear will not stifle dissent.
 
Originally posted by aflachawk:
Originally posted by theiacowtipper:

No one on the right on this board wants to talk about the substance of that idiot Walker's comments. He hasn't seen the final deal. That doesn't matter. It is completely irrelevant how good the final deal is. He says that on day one of his presidency he walks away from the final result. Then, even if every other country in the world trades with Iran, we unilaterally implement sanctions that will have absolutely no effect on the country. None. Zero.Â

Moron. Absolutely no clue on foreign relations. This reminds of North Korea over and over. Clinton had a deal with their regime and they didn't develop nuclear weapons. GWB is elected and starts his axis of evil nonsense and paranoia takes over in Pyongyang. Boom, they now have enough plutonium for 6-7 bombs.Â

Contrary to Republican dogma, the best deal you can get is better than no deal. No deal let's Iran get a bomb without restrictions.Â
No deal is better than a bad deal. What we should do in the event of no deal is ratchet up the sanctions. Make their countries sanctions like South Africa. That would have the best chance to succeed. Why do you think their even at the table? These sanctions hurt their economy very much. Make them even worse and see what happens.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
That's a horrible idea. How about we just get the flip out of there and pay market rates for their oil? Sanctions were placed on Iraq after Desert Storm that resulted in the death of 576,000 women and children, that was later found by Madeline Albright and Bill Richardson as "worth it". Out of this action, 9/11 occurred, as agreed upon by Paul Wolfowitz. It gave birth to a whole generation of terrorists. Darn neocons and neb-libs can't help but interfere in the lives of others.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT