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.
originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Ahabstar
Or both sides could actually stop sabotaging each others every move and work together for everyone's benefit like they were elected to do and are being paid to do. You know, represent us and our interests???
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Which would be done by both sides agreeing to censure him. He should be for what he is doing. Of course Democrats will refuse to do what is best for the people (like Republicans would do in their place).
originally posted by: xuenchen
How come Iran doesn't just use oil and natural gas for their generators?
Hmmm.
Maybe that should be the treaty.
Obama To Bypass Congress On Iran Treaty?
originally posted by: VariableConstant
originally posted by: xuenchen
How come Iran doesn't just use oil and natural gas for their generators?
Hmmm.
Maybe that should be the treaty.
Who knows. Maybe they want to sell their natural resources to the highest bidder, and be able to produce energy without it?
That is for them to decide. Regardless, they have the right to nuclear energy the same as anyone, but that's not really what this thread is about.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: blargo
a reply to: Krazysh0t
That is why I really dislike these process arguments. This is a pretty standard process in the modern era. All the presidents did it. Argue about what is in the agreement and that is fair game. But these process arguments as if Obama or W Bush before are the first to do such a thing is crazy.
What's funny is that literally EVERY argument used to discredit Obama's Presidency has been used before against other Presidents. Even the Birther argument isn't new. This is why I tire easily of political debates. They usually end up with me getting insulted and typecast into the opposing party when I support neither, and no one can recognize political rhetoric and hyperbole anymore. It's really scary when people start using it and don't even know they are using it. They repeat those arguments like they are being insightful.
Obama seems bound and determined to see a treaty signed.
If Iran is such a non-event, then why the worry?
Why do we even need a treaty?
Won't Iran build a nuke regardless?
originally posted by: links234
Oil and gas aren't that efficient at producing electricity. I imagine Iran has been pretty limited in what they can do with their oil and gas because of varying sanctions that have been imposed upon them over the decades.
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Which would be done by both sides agreeing to censure him. He should be for what he is doing. Of course Democrats will refuse to do what is best for the people (like Republicans would do in their place).
I personally don't know enough about the situation to say what needs to be done. But I do know that anytime you publicly show signs of a breakdown of command and internal problems, especially in the upper ranks like what is clearly happening between the Dems. and Reps. and the POTUS it's all bad.
originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: beezzer
If Iran is such a non-event, then why the worry?
Because the GOP's boss Benny wants it that way. He has been trying to get America to attack Iran for decades so he needs to drum up fear among the sheepole.
Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the second-in-command in the Revolutionary Guards, told Iranian state media on Thursday that his troops are capable of firing Shahab-3 missiles on Israel.
Iran escalates threats, vows to shower Israel with 'Shahab' missiles
originally posted by: xuenchen
Then why isn't Obama pressing for more nuclear power stations?
Sanctions on Iran have nothing to do with their own oil and gas resources being used in their own country do they?