52% of Americans Think Congress Should Kill Iran Nuclear Deal? Clearly They Love Being At War

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: JesseVentura

We don't stand in the streets chanting, "Death to Iran" do we? Why do you think 52% of people find Iran untrustwrthy? Because of their ongoing threats, rhetoric, and covert actions. Iran was supporting our stance against ISIS and turning around and funding g, providing military support for the Houdis in Yemen.

And you wonder why most do not want to have a nuke deal with this country?.

No, we do not want war...on the contrary. We are war weary. We want life. Our own to continue in our country, our FREE country.

Get it?

Yes. Also forget the whole invading our embassy thing, decades of supporting terrorism around the world, and making IEDs that killed our troops in Iraq--I guess you think we should lose a few, Jesse?.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Uh, no.....52% don't favor war. Rather it is the case that 52% don't understand the deal or the background against which it has come to pass. 52% probably can't find Iran on a map, much less understand what's really going on with this deal.

a reply to: Sremmos80

They attack us by proxy. Is that not an attack? Must they announce "death to America commencing in 3...2...1..." ?

Your comment that plenty of people have a death to Iran line of thought. That is speculation on your part. I do not want Iranians dead. I want those who are responsible for continued attacks by proxy to be held accountable and the innocent Iranians who struggle to live everyday to not have to. I hate no one.

I am also no war monger. I'd get behind any path to mutually assured cease fire from all attacks and murder, murder-suicides everywhere worlwide. But that's because I live in a country that allows me a certain degree of freedom and the right to fair speech. They don't have either of those. They are taught hate from the knee in preparation for their future actions for service to Iran.

I wonder it the 52% are ready to sacrifice their kids to the military industrial complex for their profit in war. The Iraq deal worked out well for them.

www.costsofwar.org...

a reply to: JesseVentura

Fox News IS the highest rated news channel... What did you expect?

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Sremmos80

They attack us by proxy. Is that not an attack? Must they announce "death to America commencing in 3...2...1..." ?

Can you prove this? I see so many saying this, but rarely any proof of it.

a reply to: Aazadan

No, in my opinion, it isn't a very good deal, it is a very poor deal. An good deal would benefit everyone equally. This one doesn't do that.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yemen had a view of Iranian battleships off their coastline and the crew weren't out fishing. It was a war ship with intent to activate it's arsenal of weapons whenever they decided to.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: AceWombat04

The deal with Iran is a flawed, deeply troubling one. Far from perfect, and far from assured to bring about its desired goals. However right now, it is the best alternative available to the world and indeed, to Iran.

Baby steps then.

Better than throwing it out with the bath water.

If you mean the deal, I concur. If you mean a better alternative, that would be ideal, of course. I don't think time would permit the latter to be constructed though, sadly. I wish it were otherwise.

Peace.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yemen had a view of Iranian battleships off their coastline and the crew weren't out fishing. It was a war ship with intent to activate it's arsenal of weapons whenever they decided to.

First off, source? Second off, did the battleship DO anything? If not, how is that a proxy attack? Sounds like saber rattling to me.

a reply to: Ultralight

We don't stand in the streets chanting, "Death to Iran" do we?

That's what polls are for.

Why do you think 52% of people find Iran untrustwrthy?

Because they are simple minded people that do no research and only listen to propaganda.

Iran was supporting our stance against ISIS and turning around and funding g, providing military support for the Houdis in Yemen.

Why are we doing anything in Yemen? What goes on in that nation should be none of our business but we get to kill people so that makes it ok right?

And you wonder why most do not want to have a nuke deal with this country?

As I said before because people just listen to propaganda.

No, we do not want war...on the contrary. We are war weary. We want life.

Dream on. We have been fighting in one place or another since WW2 we love to spread death.

Our own to continue in our country, our FREE country.

Yes our "free" country that Iran is no threat to to attacking us.

Get it?

The only thing that can be got out of your post is that you are one of those people that only listens to propaganda.

a reply to: Ultralight

They attack us by proxy. Is that not an attack? Must they announce "death to America commencing in 3...2...1..." ?

Oh really? Just when they proxy attack America? Sorry but you cannot include the nations that we invaded.

I want those who are responsible for continued attacks by proxy to be held accountable and the innocent Iranians who struggle to live everyday to not have to.

Iran has a right to provide weapons to their allies just as America does. So is Iran to be blamed when their allies use those weapons on a nation that illegally invaded them?

I'd get behind any path to mutually assured cease fire from all attacks and murder, murder-suicides everywhere worlwide.

So do you support this deal?

They are taught hate from the knee in preparation for their future actions for service to Iran.

There you go with the propaganda again you should be writing for FOX news.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I created a detailed thread about this as reported by an NBC news on site correspondent weeks ago. I refer you to that thread as the source.

Attack was immenant but Iran chose to attack by funding the Houthis. That is not Saber rattling.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I created a detailed thread about this as reported by an NBC news on site correspondent weeks ago. I refer you to that thread as the source.

Do you think I'm a mindreader? How about posting a link? It's common courtesy to source your claims you know?

Attack was immenant but Iran chose to attack by funding the Houthis. That is not Saber rattling.

Yes, it is. In fact, that's how ALL saber rattling works. An attack is imminent and then is called off at the last minute due to some last minute political negotiations, but there was never ACTUALLY an intention to do anything. The point was the threat of force all along.

You don't think the grandstanding between Japan and China over those islands last years wasn't saber rattling either do you? Because attacks were "imminent" a few times during that fiasco as well.

a reply to: buster2010

You obviously think you have authority over what I get to do. You don't.

If the funding of attacks come from Iran, then yes, Iran must be included in the ownership of end results...just as the US should.

I have relatives in Iran, so that gives me a bit more perspective over those who get their spoon fed info from others. The truth of life for many in Iran is hellish.

I do not support this "deal" .

a reply to: JesseVentura

Jesse, I love brother, been a huge fan my entire life, I believe your heart is in the right place most of the time, and you are trying to do what you think is right.

This time though..... Not so much.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We are not speaking of Japan or China on this thread. The topic is Iran's nuke "deal" and going to war with them.
Your comment will likely cause thread drift and I am not biting.

a reply to: Ultralight

It's called an analogy. I made it in response to your assertion that the battleship thing wasn't saber rattling. Saying you won't bite is just your refusal to acknowledge that you could be wrong.

Also, where is that link?

a reply to: JesseVentura

Personally I think we should televise all talks like this. We don't need secret closed door agreements.

All the secrets lead to speculation, the speculation leads to conspiracy theories, conspiracy theories lead to conspiracy insanity.

Why can't the leaders of the world allow everyone to watch the negotiations? If Iran believes they are right in protecting sovereignty and the US and other nations believe they are right in containing Nuclear Proliferation then neither side should be against allowing the public to watch the negotiations.

Open negotiations would eliminate all the speculation and conspiracy theories. Only liars would be afraid of public negotiations.

Also I find Isreal to be highly hypocritical. It's easy to tell another nation they can't have nukes when you have them yourself. To me either all have nukes or none have nukes. Isn't it time we grow up and dismantle all nuclear weapons?

Nuclear Weapons simply have no place in this world. Nothing good comes out of possessing them nor using them. It is all fear and power. It's time the people of this world tell the governments and military industrial complex, enough with childish games.

If they want to nuke each other we can send them and their nuclear weapons to the moon and they can have all the fun they want. Because I don't think their are any human beings outside of government that are pro nuclear weapons.

a reply to: JesseVentura

Much like yourself, Jesse, I have seen combat so have a first hand knowledge of what it is like.
Because of this I cant understand how so many people seem so set against a diplomatic solution when dealing with any foriegn government.
Maybe these people will either be happy when some of the nations of the world bring a war to their doorstep.
I would hope some of them will wake up before this happens but I am not holding my breath.