Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

White House to sign off on Iran nuclear development allowing weaponization in 10 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/phased-us-iran-nu ... itics.html

The single worst decision in our nation's history.

Wait....Iran with Nuclear weapons is a bad idea?

Spoiler: show

travelinman67 wrote:White House to sign off on Iran nuclear development allowing weaponization in 10 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/phased-us-iran-nu ... itics.html

The single worst decision in our nation's history.

Close but no cigar. The reelection of Obama holds that honor.

Ibanez wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:White House to sign off on Iran nuclear development allowing weaponization in 10 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/phased-us-iran-nu ... itics.html

The single worst decision in our nation's history.

Close but no cigar. The reelection of Obama holds that honor.

Probably true, since it led directly to THIS decision.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote: Close but no cigar. The reelection of Obama holds that honor.

Probably true, since it led directly to THIS decision.

Cause & Effect.

Kerry is utterly incompetent.

We would be wiser to have Dennis Rodman negotiating nuclear accords.

So the argument is
We think we can keep them from Nukes forever..?
And by negotiating with them for Nukes in ten years we're now somehow in more danger...?

keep your friends close and your enemies closer maybe..?

Chizzang wrote:So the argument is
We think we can keep them from Nukes forever..?
And by negotiating with them for Nukes in ten years we're now somehow in more danger...?

keep your friends close and your enemies closer maybe..?

Every president since the invention of the nuclear bomb has managed to keep them from developing the capability. But SOMEHOW, Obama isn't able...go figure.

I suspect the administration is wagering on a regime change before the 10 years lapses.

Iran's population is heavily Westernized, especially those 35 and under (which account for nearly 70 percent of the country). The current regime in Iran is non-representative of those it governs, and this will only become even more pronounced in the next decade.

I don't know enough to pass an assessment about whether this wager is reasonable. I would hope, though, it is based on significant and credible intelligence indicating that a regime change is inevitable.

Iran gets nukes, Russia gets the Ukraine, ISIS gets Syria and lots of Iraqi desert. Why North Korea isn't taking advantage of this opportunity to get what they want is beyond me. Maybe they were too focused on that movie and lost perspective?

JoltinJoe wrote:I suspect the administration is wagering on a regime change before the 10 years lapses.

Iran's population is heavily Westernized, especially those 35 and under (which account for nearly 70 percent of the country). The current regime in Iran is non-representative of those it governs, and this will only become even more pronounced in the next decade.

I don't know enough to pass an assessment about whether this wager is reasonable. I would hope, though, it is based on significant and credible intelligence indicating that a regime change is inevitable.

Bah, to hell with your logic and rational thinking! Them durn ragheads gonna blow up the whole world!

JoltinJoe wrote:I suspect the administration is wagering on a regime change before the 10 years lapses.

Iran's population is heavily Westernized, especially those 35 and under (which account for nearly 70 percent of the country). The current regime in Iran is non-representative of those it governs, and this will only become even more pronounced in the next decade.

I don't know enough to pass an assessment about whether this wager is reasonable. I would hope, though, it is based on significant and credible intelligence indicating that a regime change is inevitable.

The regime change these jokers are wagering on is their own. Since they won't be in office when Iran gets nukes, its not their problem.

JoltinJoe wrote:I suspect the administration is wagering on a regime change before the 10 years lapses.

Iran's population is heavily Westernized, especially those 35 and under (which account for nearly 70 percent of the country). The current regime in Iran is non-representative of those it governs, and this will only become even more pronounced in the next decade.

I don't know enough to pass an assessment about whether this wager is reasonable. I would hope, though, it is based on significant and credible intelligence indicating that a regime change is inevitable.

But that's been the case in Iran for something like the past 20 years and they haven't had a regime change yet. Either the highly Westernized, young Iranians who aren't overthrowing their government actually like their government, or they don't have the means to overthrow them. Seeing how they haven't made a lot of noise, I'm going with the former.

GannonFan wrote:Iran gets nukes, Russia gets the Ukraine, ISIS gets Syria and lots of Iraqi desert. Why North Korea isn't taking advantage of this opportunity to get what they want is beyond me. Maybe they were too focused on that movie and lost perspective?

It's a mystery why North Korea isn't getting something, even the Castro's figured out how to jump on the band wagon.

LeadBolt wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I suspect the administration is wagering on a regime change before the 10 years lapses.

Iran's population is heavily Westernized, especially those 35 and under (which account for nearly 70 percent of the country). The current regime in Iran is non-representative of those it governs, and this will only become even more pronounced in the next decade.

I don't know enough to pass an assessment about whether this wager is reasonable. I would hope, though, it is based on significant and credible intelligence indicating that a regime change is inevitable.

The regime change these jokers are wagering on is their own. Since they won't be in office when Iran gets nukes, its not their problem.

Yep, just like ISIS isn't Bush and co's problem, even though they so foolishly created the power vaccuum that's allowed them to flourish in Iraq.

Grizalltheway wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:
The regime change these jokers are wagering on is their own. Since they won't be in office when Iran gets nukes, its not their problem.

Yep, just like ISIS isn't Bush and co's problem, even though they so foolishly created the power vaccuum that's allowed them to flourish in Iraq.

Or maybe the power vacuum in Iraq was created when the Big 0 pulled out American ground troops. Since ISIS began in Syria, how do you blame that on Bush. Perhaps if the Big 0's administration hadn't supported ISIS with weapons and cash vs. Syria early on, they wouldn't be the issue they are today...

ISIS is the power vacuum that Bush warned would happen if we did just pull out of Iraq, like we did. But it's still his fault?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80 ... _Agreement" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

andy7171 wrote:ISIS is the power vacuum that Bush warned would happen if we did just pull out of Iraq, like we did. But it's still his fault?

We went over this, it's Woodrow Wilson's fault. All downhill in that region since the Treaty of Versailles.

Grizalltheway wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:
The regime change these jokers are wagering on is their own. Since they won't be in office when Iran gets nukes, its not their problem.

Yep, just like ISIS isn't Bush and co's problem, even though they so foolishly created the power vaccuum that's allowed them to flourish in Iraq.

And who's fault is it that ISIS is in Libya?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:So the argument is
We think we can keep them from Nukes forever..?
And by negotiating with them for Nukes in ten years we're now somehow in more danger...?

keep your friends close and your enemies closer maybe..?

Every president since the invention of the nuclear bomb has managed to keep them from developing the capability. But SOMEHOW, Obama isn't able...go figure.

Um... okay I'll bite

So your argument is we can keep a free country (Iran) from Nukes development FOREVER
until the end of time (the end) regardless of available technology and so forth

Is that your argument..?

Why didn't Bush stop North Korea from Nukes in 2006..?
Every President since 1950 had - why did our president let that happen..?

Oh and:
Every c- physics student at MIT knows how to build THE bomb
So ten years is a miracle considering that when N. Korea dropped their test bomb in 2006 everybody said Iran would have one in five years

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Every president since the invention of the nuclear bomb has managed to keep them from developing the capability. But SOMEHOW, Obama isn't able...go figure.

Um... okay I'll bite

So your argument is we can keep a free country (Iran) from Nukes development FOREVER
until the end of time (the end) regardless of available technology and so forth

Is that your argument..?

Why didn't Bush stop North Korea from Nukes in 2006..?
Every President since 1950 had - why did Bush let that happen..?

Hadn't North Korea been pursuing a weapons plan of nuclear materials as soon as they signed, and then chose not to live up to, the Agreed Framework in 1994? I always though that was the big reveal when everyone found out 10 years later they had used that thing as a ruse to get things up to speed while no one was watching. Plus I remember that Hans Blix guy - cool name.

GannonFan wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
Um... okay I'll bite

So your argument is we can keep a free country (Iran) from Nukes development FOREVER
until the end of time (the end) regardless of available technology and so forth

Is that your argument..?

Why didn't Bush stop North Korea from Nukes in 2006..?
Every President since 1950 had - why did Bush let that happen..?

Hadn't North Korea been pursuing a weapons plan of nuclear materials as soon as they signed, and then chose not to live up to, the Agreed Framework in 1994? I always though that was the big reveal when everyone found out 10 years later they had used that thing as a ruse to get things up to speed while no one was watching. Plus I remember that Hans Blix guy - cool name.

Your point..?

Grizalltheway wrote:

LeadBolt wrote:
The regime change these jokers are wagering on is their own. Since they won't be in office when Iran gets nukes, its not their problem.

Yep, just like ISIS isn't Bush and co's problem, even though they so foolishly created the power vaccuum that's allowed them to flourish in Iraq.

Actually, what created the power vacuum was us announcing our departure.

Chizzang wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Every president since the invention of the nuclear bomb has managed to keep them from developing the capability. But SOMEHOW, Obama isn't able...go figure.

Um... okay I'll bite

So your argument is we can keep a free country (Iran) from Nukes development FOREVER
until the end of time (the end) regardless of available technology and so forth

Is that your argument..?

Why didn't Bush stop North Korea from Nukes in 2006..?
Every President since 1950 had - why did our president let that happen..?

Oh and:
Every c- physics student at MIT knows how to build THE bomb
So ten years is a miracle considering that when N. Korea dropped their test bomb in 2006 everybody said Iran would have one in five years

Bush failed, just like Obama has. But at least he didn't go ahead and just tell them to do it.

Knowing how to BUILD one is one thing. Getting the MATERIALS necessary to build one is another. And being given the blessing to do so by the most powerful nation on earth is another level of lunacy altogether, while counting on a regime change is downright idiotic (if, as Ganny says, that's what they're doing).