What was bad about the Iran Deal?

cawacko said:
You're right, it's a free board so I could chime in. But I'm assuming a Rumper is a Trump supporter and you asked Trump supporters the question. If you had asked those who oppose the Iran Deal why do you do so I would have copied and pasted my answer from another thread in which I answered it.
Click to expand...

didn't like your answer enough to repeat it here huh
 
Superfreak said:
The washington post 'fact check'? LMAO They have some of the most biased 'reporting' (term used very loosely) out there.
Click to expand...

This is gossip but too good not to share. This occurred before you started posting again. Right after Bezos purchased the WP they wrote an editorial about Hillary's foreign policy beliefs that wasn't favorable to her. Desh went absolutely ballistic that Bezos was some right wing Libertarian wacko that hated Hillary and had ruined the WP.

Needless to say that rant didn't age well.
 
I Love America said:
Do you think we should be telling Iran what they can or can’t do?

Why do you care if Iran has a nuclear program?

And if you want to stop it how far are you willing to go in order to do so?

Or do you just want to bitch about Trump?
Click to expand...

I don't know? Maybe nuclear war? That bother you? Trump believes countries should have nukes. He wants Iran to restart. And he is not getting NK to destroy theirs. They can lie to Trump now. Countries do not have to honor their agreements any more. NK already showed that propensity a few years ago. But this time, it will all be different. Trump says so. Unless he changes his mind. Your word is not binding any more.
 
Jarod said:
That does not answer my question... I understand.
Click to expand...

I did answer your question. It is a bad deal because I don’t believe that we should be in the business to tell any other country what they can or cannot do.

You know we tried that with Iraq and it landed us in a war.

Now answer my question. Why do you think we should be able to dictate to Iran whether or not they have a nuclear program. Under what moral authority do you justify that?
 
The Supreme Court justices seemed to grasp the problem of gerrymandering in oral arguments on Wednesday and that it will only get worse, as computer-assisted redistricting gets even more refined.
But they appeared frustrated over what to do about it — without becoming the constant police officer on the beat.
This case, involving a Democratic-drawn congressional district in Maryland, is essentially Act II of the gerrymandering play at the Supreme Court.
Act I opened the first week in October when the nine justices heard arguments in a case testing whether there is any constitutional limit to partisan gerrymandering — the practice of drawing legislative district lines to maximize and perpetuate the power of the incumbent party. At issue in the case is the Republican gerrymander of the Wisconsin Legislature — a design that delivered nearly two-thirds of the districts to the GOP even as Republicans lost the statewide vote.
In the Maryland case argued Wednesday, Michael Kimberly, the attorney for the Republican plaintiffs, contended that the map drawers succeeded in "rigging" an election, and the average American voter understands what's going on. He dubbed it an affront to democracy.

The Two-Way
N.C. Gerrymandered Map Ruled Unconstitutional By Panel Of Judges
That's the kind of argument that Democrats have made about lots of other states throughout the country, where Democrats are underrepresented in both state legislatures and the U.S. House or Representatives.
 
evince said:
The Supreme Court justices seemed to grasp the problem of gerrymandering in oral arguments on Wednesday and that it will only get worse, as computer-assisted redistricting gets even more refined.
But they appeared frustrated over what to do about it — without becoming the constant police officer on the beat.
This case, involving a Democratic-drawn congressional district in Maryland, is essentially Act II of the gerrymandering play at the Supreme Court.
Act I opened the first week in October when the nine justices heard arguments in a case testing whether there is any constitutional limit to partisan gerrymandering — the practice of drawing legislative district lines to maximize and perpetuate the power of the incumbent party. At issue in the case is the Republican gerrymander of the Wisconsin Legislature — a design that delivered nearly two-thirds of the districts to the GOP even as Republicans lost the statewide vote.
In the Maryland case argued Wednesday, Michael Kimberly, the attorney for the Republican plaintiffs, contended that the map drawers succeeded in "rigging" an election, and the average American voter understands what's going on. He dubbed it an affront to democracy.

The Two-Way
N.C. Gerrymandered Map Ruled Unconstitutional By Panel Of Judges
That's the kind of argument that Democrats have made about lots of other states throughout the country, where Democrats are underrepresented in both state legislatures and the U.S. House or Representatives.
Click to expand...

So it is just because the democrat party isn’t winning elections?

Do you think they have a personal petty feud with the American people?
 
I Love America said:
I did answer your question. It is a bad deal because I don’t believe that we should be in the business to tell any other country what they can or cannot do.

You know we tried that with Iraq and it landed us in a war.

Now answer my question. Why do you think we should be able to dictate to Iran whether or not they have a nuclear program. Under what moral authority do you justify that?
Click to expand...

Same answer for North Korea?
 
cawacko said:
Is there anything you socialists actually liked about the Iran Deal other than Obama did it? (well, what seems to be most important about the deal is Boeing was going to get business - so is that the answer?)
Click to expand...

I like that it is effective in preventing Iran from developing nuclear technology.
 
Superfreak said:
Can't help but notice you didn't want to answer his question either. Why is that Garud?
Click to expand...

I generally don’t answer questions in threats I started, unless the person has answered my question first. I don’t like when the thread is so quickly derailed.
 
cawacko said:
You're right, it's a free board so I could chime in. But I'm assuming a Rumper is a Trump supporter and you asked Trump supporters the question. If you had asked those who oppose the Iran Deal why do you do so I would have copied and pasted my answer from another thread in which I answered it.
Click to expand...
What thread is it in? I'd be interested in reading it.
 
We pay them billions, and get very little. All they have to do is suspend some centrifuges for a few years. They get sanction relief and billions of dollars. They don't even have to agree not to build nukes after some time.

They didn't have to suspend their missile program. Or if they did, they have now broken the deal.

Obummer also paid a ransom in the form of billions being delivered secretly in the form of crates. This is despicable.
 
I Love America said:
I did answer your question. It is a bad deal because I don’t believe that we should be in the business to tell any other country what they can or cannot do.

You know we tried that with Iraq and it landed us in a war.

Now answer my question. Why do you think we should be able to dictate to Iran whether or not they have a nuclear program. Under what moral authority do you justify that?
Click to expand...

We halted the Iranian nuclear program and now by withdrawing we are allowing them to start it all over again. Is that want you want, what you are looking for?
 
Jarod said:
I generally don’t answer questions in threats I started, unless the person has answered my question first. I don’t like when the thread is so quickly derailed.
Click to expand...

You are a moronic troll. No one should take your threads seriously.
 
Irish said:
We pay them billions, and get very little. All they have to do is suspend some centrifuges for a few years. They get sanction relief and billions of dollars. They don't even have to agree not to build nukes after some time.

They didn't have to suspend their missile program. Or if they did, they have now broken the deal.

Obummer also paid a ransom in the form of billions being delivered secretly in the form of crates. This is despicable.
Click to expand...

Lol no, he didn't. You just got duped into thinking he did. Do at least a modicum of your own research from time to time.
 
aloysious said:
What thread is it in? I'd be interested in reading it.
Click to expand...

This is what I wrote to Annatta yesterday. Short answer but my basic thoughts. I should add by stopping Iran's adventurism in the M.E. I mean by diplomacy, not war. Again, I could be shown to be (very) wrong here. So many responses were about Trump and Obama hence my comments on them.



Interesting, I'm a fan of the move. I know there are many differing, and passionate, opinions on this. But I believe it was a poorly done deal at time it was completed. That Iran has been cheating, as they planned to all along. And they have taken the money we've given them and used it to sponsor terrorism in the M.E.

Other countries liked the deal because they want Iran's money. Ultimately though, they'd rather partner with the U.S. than Iran.

And I've seen all the comments across various media outlets today that this was racist and anti-Obama etc. etc. Lord knows I am not a Trump fan but I do support this action. Pulling out the deal is just step one. Now it is incumbent upon Trump and his team to work with Congress to get sanctions in place and doing what it takes to stop Iran's adventurism in the M.E.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top