DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Will do 'everything possible' to stop Iran deal: U.S. House speaker

If we believe the Bible, the God has used the military to claim land, but He also sometimes used less actual manpower to show His power.

In the 6 day war, Israel was attacked from all sides. As in the Bible, Israel was badly outnumbered, yet won decisively.

Tiny Israel was on one side, with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, and Algeria, etc., on the other side.

It was remarkably similar to the way God had the Israelites fight wars in the Bible, and was over just about as quickly as most of those wars ended in the Bible.

You do realize that Israel has many Arabs living within its borders, many of which have been offered full citizenship. Even those who decline Israeli citizenship are still allowed to vote in local elections.

That's a far cry from how Jews have ben treated in many other parts of the world.

Are the Jewish people "just paranoid" about their security? I would suggest that they have had darn good reason to be extremely concerned, given the way they have been treated in the last century.

I can see that our meeting with these guys went something like this

Isn't it amazing how many problems the questions of 'who was the handmaiden' and 'who was the heir of Abraham' have caused?

Three major religions, all supposedly talking to the same God, none of which can agree on much of anything except that the other guys have it wrong.

If people could just keep their religions to themselves like Buddhists & Taoists, the world would be far better off.

Might just be the way God wants it. We are but puny humans on eternities path.

Why do you continue to promote theocratic rule if you believe God wants the opposite?

It is not always easy to know what God wants but I always know what I want. I do not want theocratic rule, I want a morale and caring and decent society but the Libs have turned us into a culture of death.

Washington (CNN)A majority of Americans want Congress to reject the recently-negotiated nuclear deal with Iran, even as President Barack Obama's approval rating continues to stand in net-positive territory for the second month in a row, according to a new CNN/ORC poll.

The new CNN/ORC poll finds 49% approve of the way Obama is handling his job, 47% disapprove, about the same as in a June survey, which found the President's approval rating at 50% for the first time since 2013. But on the President's biggest accomplishment since then -- the nuclear agreement reached between the U.S., its allies and Iran -- most say they would like to see Congress reject it. Overall, 52% say Congress should reject the deal, 44% say it should be approved.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/28/politics/obama-approval-iran-economy/index.html

i just saw a poll on another website that said the majority of americans want the deal to pass.

so which one is right?

What's it matter? They don't have the votes to override a veto. So it will pass.

The poll I read is from CNN, where is yours from?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat...7f89_story.html

here's a whole list of different polls:

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/27/9049839/iran-deal-polls

then huff:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/10/iran-nuclear-deal-poll_n_7039700.html

seems like the polling is all over the place.

CNN's poll is from yesterday, your polls are from March and April. CNN said the same things your polls said way back in early spring.

Makes no difference if they reject it, as Mr. Dictator has already said he'll veto any attempts of Republicans to stop the Iran deal.

It's pointless.

Do you have any polls with girls swinging from them?

I can't understand why there isn't nationwide outrage over the deal being presented to the UN PRIOR to being presented to Congress. Unbelievable...yet typical of the current regime. Transparency? Riiiiiiight.

Because we have gotten used to the Liberals doing anything to win their position on any subject. Force, libel, discrediting, lying, misdirection, bullying, whatever it takes because they want it and the Nation be damned.

War Mongers unite. . .

I don't know if this has been said since the last time I looked in on this thread but I would like to point out that a mere few months back swish and Von Doom both were treating anyone concerned with a nuclear Iran with ridicule. Swish was saying that they would be no threat because they'd never use the bomb because if they did they know they would get bombed and the ever popular 'hey, who are we to say they can't have a bomb? We have them and we're the only ones who used them!'

Now that republicans don't like this deal swish is all of a sudden concerned with a nuclear Iran, so much so that the four American hostages we could've gotten as part of the deal are now to be sacrificed to save millions of lives that were in no danger just a few short months ago.

Hmmm...

i'm worries simply because it's iran. i've always been worried.

but i'm not scared. and i support this deal 100 percent. on the idea that iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. but let's make this clear Ted: i don't care either way. even if they got a nuke they not gonna use it.

because other countries have nuclear weapons as well, but guess who wants to be the good guys, yet are the only country to use nukes? thats right, us.

Me and Vic have no double standard around here. we don't fear monger like the rest of you.

You seem to think that if Iran gets a nuke, that it will be Iran that will detonate the nuke.

Have you not followed how heavily they directly support pretty much every terrorist organization out there? They funnel weapons & money to all of them. If they got a nuke, I would absolutely see them getting one to someone that would have few qualms about detonating.

Unless it is in the heat of the moment, do you think we'd nuke them after the fact, after it has taken a few days to tie it to them (at best)? Heck no. We won't. Nobody will.

Even if we did, there'd be a lot of dead people for no reason at all.

you honestly think Iran would let a terrorist group even get their hands on a nuke, after we already know they have direct communication with said terrorist groups?

have you not followed the lip service they give without actually doing anything that they've said they can pull off?

you wanna know why their government wouldn't allow that? because they know their country turns into a glass skating ring the moment somebody detonates that.

you know what iranian's value more than death to Israel? survival of their own country.

why do you think NO other country with nukes have set one off yet?

it's funny cause everybody on this board is worried about big bad iran, yet for the 100th time of me pointing this out, nobody says a damn thing about Saudi Arabia directly funding terrorist groups that have cause the death of Soldiers constantly, so much that as far as direct actions taken against soldiers, they are ahead of Iran in that regard.

but it's cool if we deal with them though right.

you seem to think that if Iran get's a nuke, that Iran or it's terrorist orgs will be the first ones to use it.

that's unlikely. highly. once again, we're the only ones who have used nukes.

The world doesn't need to be scared of Iran, they need to be scared of us.

Yes, I do.
They're just about as close to crazy as North Korea.




IF it can be traced to them, and ONLY IF it can be done quickly, while tempers are still high.



Yeah, I wouldn't take that bet if I were you. They breed martyrs as a hobby there. Furthermore, you don't have to have everyone buy in.. you only need a couple of crazies with access to things, and they do not lack that.





Nobody is afraid of us, anymore.

Iran has fighter jets that the terrorist cells don't

I don't know why everyone is talking about Nuking Iran when we could knock out their Nuke factories with conventional weapons in about a day.

of course countries are still afraid of us. we still have the most powerful military in the world. why do you think no official government has tried us at all? it's all terrorist orgs.

they're just as crazy as NK? then how come you never advocate handling them?


Nobody on this board has yet to offer a viable alternative that doesn't involve americans getting killed in the process.

everybody opposes the deal, but nobody has a better solution.

sounds just like congress.

I posted the solution long ago but I guess it fell on deaf ears.

you ramble a lot like i do so what page was it on.

I had said if I was President I would have negotiated from strength like America used to.

Look Iran, you can't have a Nuke so you got 2 choices in these negotiations. One, we bomb your Nuke factories away or 2 we sign a deal lifting the sanctions so you can get back to business and you release the Americans you are holding in jail. Then you make your Nuke factories go away.

Sign here.

so.....you'd make a deal just like obama did, except add the prisoners.


i'm confused about what exactly you're complaining about.

No, I would make a deal that would get those people back, allows Iran to get back to business as a Nation and Iran would dismantle their Nuke factories.

Obama is too weak to get such a deal.

Per Obama:


Link

The Ayatollah would've called your bluff, and then we would have more boots on the ground in places where we don't belong. Stop buying into Islamophobia!

The goal was to not allow Iran to have Nukes. If they didn't want to deal, we would bomb their Nuke factories away, kept the sanctions on and maybe bomb them out of the conventional weapons business for a year. Give the Ayatollah what he wants. His choice.

you realize bombing them means going to war, yes?

so once again, i ask the board, what deal would you have come up with that doesn't involve americans getting killed?

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/obama-alternative-to-iran-nuclear-deal-is-war-125945860306.html

president killed everyone of the GOP's weak ass arguments. loved it. watch the speech, don't just read the article.

So, even though the agreement states a definite time limit for inspecting Iran's nuke capability, this statement is still true: "Obama said the ban on the Islamic Republic getting an atomic arsenal would be “permanent” and backed up by intrusive inspections and monitoring."

So, it's a "permanent" ban on nuclear weapons? I was under the understanding that the inspection process was limited to a certain number of year - like, 10 I believe.

can't be ten if the deal is 15.

but the only way iran gets to develop nukes is if they violate the terms. the sanctions currently in place, like obama said, wasn't working, and they've been there since before he took office.

so iran basically had two choices: no nukes, better economy, or "attempt" to get nukes, stagnant economy and a "hey how you doing" visit from the US military.

i'm glad we getting back to being diplomats, instead of beating our chest like gorillas.

all about compromise. we definitely won in this deal, as this could open us up to iranian oil as well, even though i still wonder why the past administration didn't take over the oil fields in iraq since we were already there.

Don't you think it's ironic that the same people that feel everyone should arm themselves for protection have HUGE issues with other countries arming themselves for their protection?

LOL Those other countries aren't members of the NRA!

...not yet...