It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama seals Iran deal win as Senate Democrats find 34 votes

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: dukeofjive696969

I am of the belief that Iran already has nukes and that is why this deal was so favorable to them.


What makes you believe that? Have anything to support that belief?

There was some flap about that when the Soviet Union dissolved. Iran supposedly acquired some artillery shell nukes from a disgruntled Soviet General or some such…

Some flap about it...
edit on 3-9-2015 by intrptr because: spelling




posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

So they have had them for almost 30 years and no nuclear attacks?

Like already said, kinda throws a wrench in the "they will destroy everyone" once they get the nukes thought process.

We are trying something new in the ME, diplomacy over bombs.


edit on rdThu, 03 Sep 2015 12:17:15 -0500America/Chicago920151580 by Sremmos80 because: no has cheezburger



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
the diplomacy will work until it no longer suits them like hitler did. But hey peace in our time right?
34 senators. bet that cost around a few million in bribes and promises. otherwise it would not had taken so long for them to get the 34 votes.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

If Iran is diplomatic and peace remains, the it'll be a good thing and it'll be Obama's legacy.

If Iran builds a nuke and detonates it or gives it to the terrorism groups they sponsor, it'll be Obama's legacy.

Funny how the leftists scream in horror over Christians in the US but are all for a Muslim Theocracy and trust them so much.

It makes me lol.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa
the diplomacy will work until it no longer suits them like hitler did. But hey peace in our time right?
34 senators. bet that cost around a few million in bribes and promises. otherwise it would not had taken so long for them to get the 34 votes.

so because diplomacy once failed with Hitler the USA and NATO need sack all diplomats and just stomp round the world bomb happy with a policy of shoot first then ask questions later?

Blah blah blah hitler blah blah blah its the typical sound of a squawking chicken hawk who froths at there mouth for war.

Yeah diplomacy failed with Hitler! You know what? Im glad and proud the UK tried, it at least gave us the moral high ground and we still won the war and with our heads held high.

Iran completely different situation as there is no no GD evidence they are working towards WMD and if they renege on the deal? Then fair enough bomb them! But UNTIL there is firm evidence they are going to break the deal then give diplomacy and chance!



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

no we wont

They will be inspecting their own, bringing in their own people to do it

We wont be doing anything



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

We don't want a Christian, or muslim, theocracy in the states.
We can't do much for Iran.

Is that really a fair comparison?
edit on rdThu, 03 Sep 2015 12:18:53 -0500America/Chicago920155380 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Im confused, how exactly would there have been war if we DIDNT decide to do a deal with them?

Were they gonna flip out and start bombing people or?

I keep hearing this "diplomacy is better than war"

Well if Iran is peaceful and doesnt want war with anyone, then how did this "deal" make any difference?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

We don't want a Christian, or muslim, theocracy in the states, we can't do much for Iran.

Is that really a fair comparison?


Hey! You're the guys that are "trusting" them. Guess they're worthy of your trust, being an Islamic Theocracy. Guess you can put your "faith" in them that they'll do the right thing, because religious theocracies are so rational.

*chuckle*



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

For me at least it comes from those that oppose this deal always talking about the military action we need to take against Iran for the program they already. We all heard about how they have been developing the bomb before this and were enriching and what not.
It was also my understanding that it wasn't Iran doing the inspections, where is that part at?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: beezzer

We don't want a Christian, or muslim, theocracy in the states, we can't do much for Iran.

Is that really a fair comparison?


Hey! You're the guys that are "trusting" them. Guess they're worthy of your trust, being an Islamic Theocracy. Guess you can put your "faith" in them that they'll do the right thing, because religious theocracies are so rational.

*chuckle*


Iran is a sovereign nation. The only thing we can do is to trust them, trade with them and be cautious until trust is built.....or we can continue to sanction them or try to overthrow their government again. Which, of course, will lead to war. That's why were in this mess to begin with.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

We can't change their theocracy... what is so hard about that point.
I don't agree with at all, but that is not my fight but the peoples of Iran.
Has nothing to do with trust and faith, it has to do with it is not our gov to change.
I wouldn't be for our gov to hold off any deals though because of that.

The only thing I trust is the logical reasoning that if Iran wanted to do something as bad as all those against them say they do, they would have done it by now.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I think that the spineless Reps allowed the deal to pass so they can use it as a weapon later. But then, again, I suspect that they are all working together but need to give the appearance in the game that they are not. How else can we explain how they own the House but have done nothing with that power?



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

All I'm saying is that you supporters are putting your faith in a religious theocracy, that many have stated are irrational and unworthy of leadership.

But that's okay by me.

I'll just sit back and laugh.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

You're trusting a religious theocracy to not build a nuclear bomb.

That's how you and the supporters are siding.

I hope this type of religious theocracy is rational enough for you.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I'm not putting faith in anything. You're trying to take this out of context in an attempt to prove some irrelevant point about religion.

Saying that we should be diplomatic with other countries, unless they are theocracies, is laughable in and of itself.

I wonder what you solution would be.
edit on 3-9-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

IF this was just up to the Iranian government id say good deal but its not. its up to the Supreme leader who is one of the lowest scumbags on the planet,(who i personally have insulted once by e mail)and who has killed people with his own hands in cold blood. They are scared of him and will do his bidding no matter the agreement.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I already told you what I trust, you are the one twisting and spinning this.

What I want for the states and what happens in Iran are completely different things.

I don't want Iran to be under a theocracy, but wouldn't let that get in the way of other feelings since there is not much I can do to change that.

I find it really funny you are trying to point on hypocrisy here when it deals with two separate countries and peoples thoughts on theocracies within them.



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Why are we not upset that there were also secret side deals that were not allowed to know about? Hell KERRY didnt even know what they were and he was the man leading the charge.....

Arent people getting a little tired of this?


edit on 9/3/2015 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: beezzer

I'm not putting faith in anything. You're trying to take this out of context in an attempt to prove some irrelevant point about religion.

Saying that we should be diplomatic with other countries, unless they are theocracies, is laughable in and of itself.

I wonder what you solution would be.


You're not siding with support for this?

All I'm saying is that supporters of this deal are trusting a religious Islamic theocracy to not make nuclear weapons.

And that many on the left have also disparaged and insulted religion(s) on a daily basis elsewhere as being "irrational".

I'm simply enjoying the dichotomy.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join