Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Chuck Schumer to vote against Iran deal

Maximum Peach





Posts: 8643
(8641 all sites)
Registered: 12/14/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2015 at 09:38 AM
Huh ? What ?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-de al/

 

____________________
You want to talk to me
Go ahead and talk
Whatever you got to say to me
Won't come as any shock

 
Replies:

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2015 at 09:42 AM
Top Democrats reject Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal

All major legitimate polls show American citizens overwhelmingly call the deal bad for the U.S., bad for the world.

Chuck Schumer to vote against Iran nuclear deal

By Kevin Liptak, Jim Acosta and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Updated 10:28 AM ET, Fri August 7, 2015

Chuck Schumer to oppose Iran nuclear deal 01:02

Washington (CNN)New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, an influential Jewish Democrat who's poised to assume leadership of his party in the Senate, will oppose President Barack Obama's nuclear deal with Iran, he announced on Thursday evening.

"After deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval," Schumer wrote in a 1,600-word post on the website Medium.

"I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy," he added later. "It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power."

Schumer's thinking on the deal has been closely watched since the plan to loosen sanctions on Tehran in exchange for access to potential nuclear sites was announced in early July.
Schumer would also vote to override the President's veto on Iran deal, an aide told CNN on Friday morning, meaning he is prepared to vote "no" twice against the President.

He said in public comments over the past several weeks he was going through the deal with a "fine-tooth comb" and received briefings from top administration officials to digest the deal's inner workings.

His decision quickly provoked criticism from several former White House aides.

Former speechwriter Jon Favreau tweeted: "Chuck Schumer, who said it was a mistake to pass Obamacare, now comes out again the Iran Deal. This is our next Senate leader?"
Sen.: Pres. Obama treating Iran deal like a campaign

Will Obama's attacks on Iran deal opponents hurt his cause?

Schumer's announcement Thursday came after two Democratic colleagues -- fellow New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire -- both said they would back the agreement, which lawmakers have until mid-September to decide upon. On Friday morning, Wisconsin Democrat Tammy Baldwin also said she'd back the deal.

In the House, at least five Democrats came out in support of the plan on Wednesday following a major speech by Obama defending it.

But a senior House Democrat also came out in opposition Thursday night.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Eliot Engel, Schumer's New York colleague, also officially announced he was against the deal, despite a one-on-one meeting with Obama last week.

A White House official suggested Thursday that Schumer's announcement of opposition came only after enough Democratic support was assured to keep the plan intact.

One source close to the New York delegation's discussions told CNN that Schumer was expected to hold off making his opposition public until the math was clear that Republicans wouldn't be able to assemble votes for an override, though the source thought Schumer would wait until the fall to announce.

But in recent days a steady stream of public endorsements made supporters more confident they would have a firewall in place to uphold the deal.

A source familiar with Schumer's decision on Iran told CNN that the senator informed the White House earlier today of his intention to oppose the deal. He had planned to make his decision public Friday. During the first 2016 Republican presidential debate Thursday night, however, the Huffington Post reported that he would be coming out against the deal, and soon after his statement appeared on Medium.

Schumer's leanings on the deal had been closely watched since the plan to loosen sanctions on Tehran in exchange for access to potential nuclear sites was announced in early July.

Since then, the Obama administration has waged a massive lobbying effort to persuade Democrats to back the plan. The President has vowed to reject any measure scuttling the agreement, and a majority of Democrats are needed in Congress to sustain a potential veto.
Schumer had been eyed as a key vote, both for his prominence as the top Jewish Democrat in Congress and the expectation that he'll become the Democratic leader in the Senate when Minority Leader Harry Reid retires at the end of his term in 2016.

After his review, he wrote Thursday that worrisome elements of the deal -- including the provisions concerning inspections and the formula for sanctions to "snap back" if Iran violates its side of the agreement -- led him to his decision.

And he argued sanctions relief for Tehran would only serve to empower a hardline regime.
"To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great," he said.


 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2231
(2232 all sites)
Registered: 3/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2015 at 09:47 AM
I remember reading about a NJ politician who was working with Schumer on a project and stopped working with him not because of ideological differences but because he said that you for one second get in the way of Schumer's access to publicity he was become enraged to the point of being "like an angry monkey that would throw his own feces at you."

Schumer is a quintessential example of the amoral opportunistic politicians we have in government today.


While we're at it, I saw a clip of some of Jon Stewart's interviews last night and they show a quick clip of him interviewing Nancy Pelosi and the second he said the word "lobbyists" she looked straight down at the floor. Conspicuously so.

These people are puke-inducing.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2015 at 10:05 AM
Obama and Kerry, will trying hard to sell this horrible deal has resorted to political attacks and outright lying.

The first time Kerry testified before Congress, under oath, stated there was no “side-deal”

Back on The Hill the next week (trying to sell the deal) and again under oath, Kerry was caught lying.

Susan Rice, Obama and Hillary’s Benghazi liar, disclosed that she had reviewed the side deal.
Confronted with this revelation, Kerry testified that he had “been briefed” on the auxiliary agreement between the IAEA and Iran.
When asked to provide the side deals specifics to Congress Kerry said that he did not have access to it.


 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2231
(2232 all sites)
Registered: 3/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2015 at 12:56 PM
Honestly Muleman I don't know why you still believe there is a "Left/right" system in this country. It's all about the $$$. Any of these people will sell you and any beliefs they claim to hold down the river in a NY minute for a bag of ca$h. Just look at Democrate Chuck Schumer!

As far as the Iran deal goes, I don't know what is going on but I do believe that it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons stated by either side. It looks to me like Israel has SOME sort of serious interest in war with Iran, but I don't think "The Bomb" is the whole reason: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-cryin g-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

Your example of Kerry lying above does just fine as an example of, I am sure, many as to why whatever Obama is doing probably has very little to do with what they actually say in public.

At the end of the day, why not try a peace deal? We've killed and destroyed the lives of millions of people over there already and have already poured trillions of dollars in to war the last 15 years. How about some f&*(ng economic stimulus instead?

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2015 at 01:35 PM
quote:
Honestly Muleman I don't know why you still believe there is a "Left/right" system in this country. It's all about the $$$. Any of these people will sell you and any beliefs they claim to hold down the river in a NY minute for a bag of ca$h. Just look at Democrate Chuck Schumer!

As far as the Iran deal goes, I don't know what is going on but I do believe that it has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons stated by either side. It looks to me like Israel has SOME sort of serious interest in war with Iran, but I don't think "The Bomb" is the whole reason: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-cryin g-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

Your example of Kerry lying above does just fine as an example of, I am sure, many as to why whatever Obama is doing probably has very little to do with what they actually say in public.

At the end of the day, why not try a peace deal? We've killed and destroyed the lives of millions of people over there already and have already poured trillions of dollars in to war the last 15 years. How about some f&*(ng economic stimulus instead?

________________________________________________________________________

It is a matter of the votes that will be needed to override Obama’s forthcoming veto of Congress’s rejection of his Iran Nuclear deal.
Schumer is the most powerful democrat senator and has huge influence over his comrades.

It is impossible to attain a “peace deal” with a country whose leaders openly threaten to destroy The U.S.
Iran has never abided by any deal except of course with their agreements with Russia.

The sanctions were working well and Iran was forced to the negotiating table because of them.
They know of course the Obama is weak and is desperate for a foreign policy “win” in his pursuit of something legacy.
The deal struck is a perfect example of Obama and Kerry capitulating to everything Iran wanted.
The U.S. doesn’t have any participation in the inspections nor are privy to the results of those inspections. Iran’s nuclear bomb making will be done at their 4 military sites at which there will be no inspections.

When you are put at risk by an enemy your only option is to fight and win.

The American people know this is a bad deal and their opinion is reflected in every major legitimate poll: two-thirds say this is a bad deal and should be rejected.

Obama and Kerry’s deal with Iran was the product of a weak president and a poor Sec. of State.
Good deals are achieved by negotiating from a position of strength.


 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2231
(2232 all sites)
Registered: 3/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/7/2015 at 02:04 PM
See, your repeating a lot of the talking points that I hear in the mainstream media and my point is I think that's mostly B.S. On both sides.

Example: Libya. It was all about the "humanitarian situation!" in Libya. "We must help!" Well, we went in there and completely destroyed Libya and now no one cares. Why did we care before and not now? Obviously because we never gave a sh*t in the first place and that was about something that had nothing to do with The Libyan people.

Same deal here. Whatever is going on and whether or not this is a good deal or not is very difficult to judge when you are being spoon-fed Cold War-level propaganda. (An aside on that: "threaten to destroy the US" - how would they seriously do that? Even if they detonated - especially if they detonated - a nuke in NYC we would pulverize them into radioactive micro-dust. Pretend you are an Iranian military commander and explain your plan to me how you plan to "destroy" the US and as to how this all ends well for Iran.)

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 11:03 AM
Quote:
“Example: Libya. It was all about the "humanitarian situation!" in Libya. "We must help!" Well, we went in there and completely destroyed Libya and now no one cares. Why did we care before and not now? Obviously because we never gave a sh*t in the first place and that was about something that had nothing to do with The Libyan people.”
______________________________________________________________________

Yea, the "humanitarian situation!" in Libya. "We must help!" was the line that Obama and Hillary used to try and conceal their attempt to install The Muslim Brotherhood in Libya. That of course blew up in their faces and the result was Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans being murdered and shortly thereafter ISIS took over the country.

Curiously all of Hillary’s emails from that April and May when Obama and Hillary were trying to pull this off are missing. Every one of them.

Remember Obama running to the TV cameras claiming that The Muslim Brotherhood was the solution to the problems in Libya and Egypt and he supported that (terrorist) group?

Notice that Obama hasn’t mentioned The Muslim Brotherhood since?


 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2231
(2232 all sites)
Registered: 3/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 01:20 PM
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmHofVLyDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBW7Tl0FG0

Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?


 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5664
(5671 all sites)
Registered: 2/2/2008
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 03:35 PM
The reality may be as simple as he thinks its a bad deal. Can't anyone disagree with Obama without being give a psychiatric diagnosis? Plent of people do not trust Iran as far as you could throw a bus
 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 04:02 PM
quote:
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmHofVLyDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBW7Tl0FG0

Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?



______________________________________________________________________

The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”

It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.


 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1129
(1129 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 04:28 PM
quote:
quote:
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmHofVLyDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBW7Tl0FG0

Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?



______________________________________________________________________

The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”

It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.




Eh, no actually you are wrong again Mule. The S-300 is a surface to air missile and is a defensive weapon not an ICBM. The top of the line model has a range of 200km's max so I don't think Iran will using them to deliver nukes to America anytime soon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-firm-to-provide-iran-with-s-300-miss ile-system-once-contract-agreed-2015-6

You should try doing a little research before you post your misinformation.

[Edited on 8/8/2015 by Bill_Graham]

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 11676
(12119 all sites)
Registered: 1/8/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 04:31 PM
quote:
The reality may be as simple as he thinks its a bad deal.

Bingo!

 

____________________
We'd all like to vote for the best man, but he's never a candidate.

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2231
(2232 all sites)
Registered: 3/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 04:36 PM
quote:
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond.
quote:


The U.S. "would not respond" if attacked by Iran.

I keep forgetting that you just say these things to troll and get a response.

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1129
(1129 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 05:04 PM
quote:
quote:
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond.
quote:


The U.S. "would not respond" if attacked by Iran.

I keep forgetting that you just say these things to troll and get a response.


yeah you won't be laughing so hard buddy boy when the first Iranian invasion landing craft hits the shores of Manhattan.

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2231
(2232 all sites)
Registered: 3/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 05:52 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond.
quote:


The U.S. "would not respond" if attacked by Iran.

I keep forgetting that you just say these things to troll and get a response.


yeah you won't be laughing so hard buddy boy when the first Iranian invasion landing craft hits the shores of Manhattan.


Although I am concerned about a boatload of stoned communist Iranian islamo-terrorists taking Manhattan I am comforted by the fact that Donald Trump plans to build a muslim-proof sea-wall across Long Island sound and around NYC's harbor.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 06:12 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmHofVLyDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBW7Tl0FG0

Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?



______________________________________________________________________

The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”

It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.




Eh, no actually you are wrong again Mule. The S-300 is a surface to air missile and is a defensive weapon not an ICBM. The top of the line model has a range of 200km's max so I don't think Iran will using them to deliver nukes to America anytime soon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-firm-to-provide-iran-with-s-300-miss ile-system-once-contract-agreed-2015-6

You should try doing a little research before you post your misinformation.

[Edited on 8/8/2015 by Bill_Graham]

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. That missile deal was confirmed last February.

If you had read the National Security Update (June 2015-appended) you would know these details.
You won’t find the information in Rolling Stone.

Your ignorance of current factual information is typical of the far-left but of course this is not a populist social matter.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 06:44 PM
Back to the subject of this thread:

Where do liberals here stand on the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?

Do you support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal or do you reject the deal as does an ever growing number of leading Democrats in Congress, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?



 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2231
(2232 all sites)
Registered: 3/23/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 06:52 PM
quote:
Back to the subject of this thread:

Where do liberals here stand on the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal?

Do you support the Obama/Kerry Iran Nuclear Deal or do you reject the deal as does an ever growing number of leading Democrats in Congress, The Republicans and the vast majority of The American People?






 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1129
(1129 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 08:26 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmHofVLyDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBW7Tl0FG0

Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?



______________________________________________________________________

The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”

It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.




Eh, no actually you are wrong again Mule. The S-300 is a surface to air missile and is a defensive weapon not an ICBM. The top of the line model has a range of 200km's max so I don't think Iran will using them to deliver nukes to America anytime soon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-firm-to-provide-iran-with-s-300-miss ile-system-once-contract-agreed-2015-6

You should try doing a little research before you post your misinformation.

[Edited on 8/8/2015 by Bill_Graham]

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. That missile deal was confirmed last February.

If you had read the National Security Update (June 2015-appended) you would know these details.
You won’t find the information in Rolling Stone.

Your ignorance of current factual information is typical of the far-left but of course this is not a populist social matter.



Link please or I call bull$hit as the S-300 is a defensive system not an ICBM.

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8261
(8261 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 08:39 PM
Hasn't the U.S. Reneged on far more treaties than Iran?

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8261
(8261 all sites)
Registered: 6/9/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 08:45 PM
Mule an your sanctimony is ugly. I truly think you are the most reprehensible human I've ever encountered. Your blanket hatred is repulsive. Something really bad must have happened in your childhood. I pity you. I feel sorry for you. And yet, I still find you abhorrent.

 

____________________
Capitalism will always survive, because socialism will be there to save it.

Ralph Nader's Father


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 09:04 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmHofVLyDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBW7Tl0FG0

Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?



______________________________________________________________________

The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”

It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.




Eh, no actually you are wrong again Mule. The S-300 is a surface to air missile and is a defensive weapon not an ICBM. The top of the line model has a range of 200km's max so I don't think Iran will using them to deliver nukes to America anytime soon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-firm-to-provide-iran-with-s-300-miss ile-system-once-contract-agreed-2015-6

You should try doing a little research before you post your misinformation.

[Edited on 8/8/2015 by Bill_Graham]

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. That missile deal was confirmed last February.

If you had read the National Security Update (June 2015-appended) you would know these details.
You won’t find the information in Rolling Stone.

Your ignorance of current factual information is typical of the far-left but of course this is not a populist social matter.



Link please or I call bull$hit as the S-300 is a defensive system not an ICBM.

_______________________________________________________________________

I didn’t say the S-300 was an ICBM
What I did say was:

The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Those are two separate missile systems and both are included in the deal.

BTW – the S-300 can be configured as either a defensive or offensive weapons system.

Once you learn to read the next step is to learn what the words mean. Take small steps son.


 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6102
(6111 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 09:10 PM
I see the liberals are embracing the Hillary method on taking a position on important matters: avoid, evade, skirt and never answer. Take no position.

So far not one liberal has stated whether they support the deal on oppose the deal.

Unable or unwilling?

 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1129
(1129 all sites)
Registered: 8/10/2014
Status: Offline

  posted on 8/8/2015 at 09:18 PM
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
MuleM, you drink waaaay too much Koolaid:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfmHofVLyDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSBW7Tl0FG0

Also you haven't told given me an example as to how Iran could possible attack or "destroy" the US with out being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military. How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?



______________________________________________________________________

The Russians are providing Iran with a variant of their S-300 missile system, an intercontinental ballistic missile.
Flush with hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to the Obama/Kerry “deal”. Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, the heavily sanctioned Revolutionary Guard Quds Force commander, traveled to Russia last month to finalize the weapons deal.
His travel to Russia was banned but when Obama went around Congress and got the deal approved by The U.N. Security Council there is no one to enforce the travel sanction.
“without being reduced to radioactive ash or, at the very least, crushed by our military”?
You are assuming that The U.S. would respond. Iran, Russia, China and many other countries know that Obama is weak and lacks the will to defend the country. It simply doesn’t fit his agenda.
“How does attacking or attempting to destroy the US end well for them?”

It is Iran’s stated goal. You cannot understand their why unless you subscribe to their Islamic Extremist Terrorist ideology.




Eh, no actually you are wrong again Mule. The S-300 is a surface to air missile and is a defensive weapon not an ICBM. The top of the line model has a range of 200km's max so I don't think Iran will using them to deliver nukes to America anytime soon.

http://www.businessinsider.com/russian-firm-to-provide-iran-with-s-300-miss ile-system-once-contract-agreed-2015-6

You should try doing a little research before you post your misinformation.

[Edited on 8/8/2015 by Bill_Graham]

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrong again son.

The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. That missile deal was confirmed last February.

If you had read the National Security Update (June 2015-appended) you would know these details.
You won’t find the information in Rolling Stone.

Your ignorance of current factual information is typical of the far-left but of course this is not a populist social matter.



Link please or I call bull$hit as the S-300 is a defensive system not an ICBM.

_______________________________________________________________________

I didn’t say the S-300 was an ICBM
What I did say was:

The S-300 is the final part of the deal that includes a variant of the R36M, an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Those are two separate missile systems and both are included in the deal.

BTW – the S-300 can be configured as either a defensive or offensive weapons system.

Once you learn to read the next step is to learn what the words mean. Take small steps son.




No go read your original post. You claimed the variant of the S-300 was an IBCM and then back tracked and then claimed they would be also be sold a variant of the R36M as well. So which is it? Also the most advanced versions of the S- 300's have a max range of 200km so cannot be used as ICBM's.

Please provide your proof that Russia is selling Iran ICBM's as all the internet sources state it is S-300's which are Russian versions of the Patriot missiles which are defensive weapon systems. Nobody is claiming Russia is selling Iran ICBM's other than you.

Provide your source or you are full of $hit.

 

____________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." attributed to Ben Franklin

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software

Privacy | Terms of Service | Report Infringement | Personal Data Management | Contact Us
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com