Obama gets Deal with Iran!

page: 2
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
reply to post by marbles87
 


As I mentioned in my original post, It is possible they already have everything they need. In fact, given their past attitudes it would make the most sense as to why they have decided to finally "give-in".




posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Iran should tell the USA that Israel must be part of the agreement also.. Cutting deals with Obama is one thing, stopping Israel from striking is another.



posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Looks like another source reporting the same.




www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarknStormy
Iran should tell the USA that Israel must be part of the agreement also.. Cutting deals with Obama is one thing, stopping Israel from striking is another.


Israel cannot do it alone. They would just piss Iran off. You think they are hacking and assassinating for fun? When at the same time they performed an Air strike with F16s against Syria for nuclear material???

Come on now. You must have some military strategy within you..

Imagine blowing up a mountain. If you can imagine that, then you are lost...

Now Imagine us not getting involved with fighting Russia.

Sure we can take Iran. At least as a military Iran stands no chance. I just don't want to open any more cans of worms..

WE NEED TO FIX HOME. Now...

besides..
Iran knows Obama doesn't like Israel all that much right now.
edit on 10/19/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by auto73912621
 

That's because they're linking to the same source, the WND article.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


You don't think "Liberty News" does a bit of additional research?



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by auto73912621
 

That's because they're linking to the same source, the WND article.


For the record, WND sucks as a source. This, if true, does reek of back door deals to get votes at the expense of US security.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

For the record, WND sucks as a source. This, if true, does reek of back door deals to get votes at the expense of US security.


It reeks for sure. (OCTOBER)

Doesn't mean that is won't help us out.
Tell me at what expense are we paying for this??
Could we not blow them up at any time??

Way Side Note (just now seeing Obama on john stewart...) Playing for the women's vote.. Gawd I wish we had real candidates..
edit on 10/19/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


That's partly why I'd like to spark the discussion about "the background dealings", likely whatever "real" agreement that is made will be along the same lines as what we come up with. We don't have to be 100% accurate in catching the crooks in the world. Just 95%



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by auto73912621
 

Dear auto 73912621,

Well, here's the end of the free Republic snippet:

The source, who remains anonymous for security reasons and is highly placed in Iran’s regime, said that once Khamenei receives Obama’s guarantees, he will authorize an announcement by Iran on a solution to the nuclear crisis before the U.S. presidential elections.


(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.wnd.com ...


With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


If you feel like quoting , I can do that too;


Originally posted by auto73912621
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


That's partly why I'd like to spark the discussion about "the background dealings", likely whatever "real" agreement that is made will be along the same lines as what we come up with. We don't have to be 100% accurate in catching the crooks in the world. Just 95%


edit on 19-10-2012 by auto73912621 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Could we not blow them up at any time??


No offense but you serious? If anyone goes into Iran, NK, Russia and maybe China will pop huge bronners and come running to Iran's aid. Countries are picking sides on a global scale right now. The pot is boiling over and requires 24/7 attention to keep it from getting crazy but the moment someone takes their eyes off that pot all hell will break lose. The middle east is tired of getting picked on and Iran is the ones to say enough is enough. The only reason the ME is an easy target is because no one lets them build anything that they could use against a force like the United States. Iran may now have that weapon and will use it to rise to the top just like Israel did but we will keep that on the hush hush right. We are at the point in time when the underdog has nothing to lose but to throw that hay maker and hope something sticks. Iran is surrounded by people who "don't like them" for the first time and the US and Israel is backing them in a corner. Iran is afraid they will be the next Iraq just because they are in the Middle East and are Muslim.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

For the record, WND sucks as a source. This, if true, does reek of back door deals to get votes at the expense of US security.


It reeks for sure. (OCTOBER)

Doesn't mean that is won't help us out.
Tell me at what expense are we paying for this??
Could we not blow them up at any time??

Way Side Note (just now seeing Obama on john stewart...) Playing for the women's vote.. Gawd I wish we had real candidates..
edit on 10/19/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)


Obama promises to lay off, he does, Iran then completes their nuclear program while Obama looks the other way. We now have a nuclear Iran and in a similar situation we are in with a nuclear North Korea.

Obama got his votes, now the rest of us pay.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by auto73912621
 

Dear auto73912621,

I'm sorry, I must have made a huge mistake. Basically, I thought I've said three things in this thread:
1.) WND seems to be the only source for the story that I have found.
2.) We seem to be giving away tons and tons, for nothing substantial in return.
3.) The purpose seems to be to win a presidency for Obama without any concern for the cost to the US or world.

I'd enjoy talking with you, please tell me where I'm going wrong.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by marbles87
 


You have lost your marbles...

what is YOUR solution.
Attack or NO attack?

Iran already has nukes if China and Russia are truly blood brother if I am attacked so are you type allies..

Your logic speaks to some made up world..



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

For the record, WND sucks as a source. This, if true, does reek of back door deals to get votes at the expense of US security.


It reeks for sure. (OCTOBER)

Doesn't mean that is won't help us out.
Tell me at what expense are we paying for this??
Could we not blow them up at any time??

Way Side Note (just now seeing Obama on john stewart...) Playing for the women's vote.. Gawd I wish we had real candidates..
edit on 10/19/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)


Obama promises to lay off, he does, Iran then completes their nuclear program while Obama looks the other way. We now have a nuclear Iran and in a similar situation we are in with a nuclear North Korea.

Obama got his votes, now the rest of us pay.


What is so wrong with NK or Iran having a nuke? The ONLY reason anyone has one is to keep other countries from messing with them, nothing more. I can almost guarantee that no one will ever use a nuke against another country ever again. If someone did use a nuke that would be the end of the world for everyone and no one is that crazy. Maybe Kim Jong Ill was but that bastard would have been riding it to it's target. Like I said in the other post the underdogs are rising in ranks as the rest of the countries that are "Democratic Dictatorships" like the USA are crumbling under their own corruption. The world today is nothing more than scare tactics if anything big did happen almost every country will lose what little control they have over their people and no one will win. If I was the Potus I would have offered Iran help with building a Nuke Power plant like they said they were doing and bam right there you would be able to tell if they were lying or not. Get more flies with honey or something like that.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


When it comes down to the crunch, the final outcome will be out of the USA's hands. I understand what your saying but remember, A nuclear Iran is unacceptable to Israel and this will not prevent anything if the information is correct.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04


Obama promises to lay off, he does, Iran then completes their nuclear program while Obama looks the other way. We now have a nuclear Iran and in a similar situation we are in with a nuclear North Korea.

Obama got his votes, now the rest of us pay.


North Korea just keeps nuking everyone I know.. How the heck do we deal with them??
Trust me when I say this...
Russia and China are WAY more dangerous than Iran could ever be.

I don't like Obama either... Saying his name means nothing. You could think clearer and argue with me further by saying USA or something instead.. I don't care who it is Romney or Obama who has to keep dealing with this..

What I do know is that Iran is weak.. Very weak..


Should we attack and spread radiation into Israel (from the working nuclear reactors)

OR

Should we be a little more subtle...

You guys are so naive about war. It's not about strong arming these days. Not in public. Not in conventional means.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Dustytoad
 


Why does every solution have to deal with an attack. It's obvious that the ME is in the position its in because they have been exploited by the rest of the world and when they try to rise in the ranks they get kicked back to the bottom. I'm sure if someone actually went into the Middle East and tried build their infrastructure BEFORE an attack the people and gov't might be more receptive. Sure there are the terrorist cells but you can't snap your fingers to get rid of them just the same as you can't bomb them out of existence. If you help the people and the government regain control over their part of the world the people will no longer support the terrorist cells. There will be lots of blood loss to fix the Middle East but I would rather spill blood in an effort to do the right thing than to spill it in vain like Iraq and Afghanistan. Remember no matter what your message is when you go into another country you are the invader just like if any other country came into your back yard. NO army trains for peace it only trains for war and that's why everyone is at war. It will take everyone laying down their weapons and helping each other to get over this hump and I don't think it will ever happen.



posted on Oct, 19 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by marbles87

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by Dustytoad

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

For the record, WND sucks as a source. This, if true, does reek of back door deals to get votes at the expense of US security.


It reeks for sure. (OCTOBER)

Doesn't mean that is won't help us out.
Tell me at what expense are we paying for this??
Could we not blow them up at any time??

Way Side Note (just now seeing Obama on john stewart...) Playing for the women's vote.. Gawd I wish we had real candidates..
edit on 10/19/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)


Obama promises to lay off, he does, Iran then completes their nuclear program while Obama looks the other way. We now have a nuclear Iran and in a similar situation we are in with a nuclear North Korea.

Obama got his votes, now the rest of us pay.


What is so wrong with NK or Iran having a nuke? The ONLY reason anyone has one is to keep other countries from messing with them, nothing more.


Yes, so NK can keep attacking the South, keep making demands, keep saying give us food and we will be good, then going on a tirade about obliterating the South, all without fear of repurcussion. You're right, that's ideal.

Iran can openly support terrorist groups. Iran can invade their neighbors. Iran can do almost anything they want. Then if we threaten them they pull back and say stop at our borders or we will nuke Israel. Nuke SA. Nuke Turkey. You're right, that's not a problem.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 11 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP6

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def