Kerry Fails Again-Iran Talks Extended-No Agreement In Sight

[houndawg]

Why ever would their political leaders rattle sabers???

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/20/j ... n-day-one/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Your article has nothing to do with "saber rattling". Rather, it encourages the Republicans, through Congressional action, block the agreement with the intent of preventing a military action.



Just want to point out, Klam, you're supporting an agreement which provides $150 billion to a Sharia nation that summarily hangs and beheads gays, and women who are not subservient to their husbands.

Progressivehypocrisy.

You'd be all for it if it were happening to poor folk here in the US.

[travelinman67]

Your article has nothing to do with "saber rattling". Rather, it encourages the Republicans, through Congressional action, block the agreement with the intent of preventing a military action.



Just want to point out, Klam, you're supporting an agreement which provides $150 billion to a Sharia nation that summarily hangs and beheads gays, and women who are not subservient to their husbands.

Progressivehypocrisy.

"You would be all fo it if it was happnin' tuh po' folk here in duh US."

[CID1990]

The Speech...

...from Iran's Supreme Leader, the Asshola Khamenei...

...28 minutes...with English translation.

Summary: They will continue to develop a nuclear weapon as that is Allah's will.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=0odFv4iB0FI[/youtube]

Just placating his religious idiots. Its a show, you dummy.

i thought we had learned our lesson (several times over) about not taking fanatics (religious or otherwise) at their word

BTW let's save this post and compare it with the reactions when GOP candidates start finding Jeezus in the next 6 months

[D1B]

King Troll...the sound of one hand clapping.

You haven't posted anything relevant in years.

Yeah, as you stay up all night, every night, trying to save your scrappleesque ass in numerous threads.

You're the new Spandos, except not as smart.

[Grizalltheway]

From the minute Iran detected that the U.S. was unwilling to use its overwhelming military force to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program — and that dates back to the George W. Bush administration, which would neither accept Iran’s right to a nuclear fuel cycle nor structure a military or diplomatic option to stop it — no perfect deal overwhelmingly favorable to America and its allies was ever going to emerge from negotiations with Iran. The balance of power became too equal.

But there are degrees of imperfect, and the diplomatic option structured by the Obama team — if properly implemented and augmented by muscular diplomacy — serves core American interests better than any options I hear coming from the deal’s critics: It prevents Iran from producing the fissile material to break out with a nuclear weapon for 15 years and creates a context that could empower the more pragmatic forces inside Iran over time — at the price of constraining, but not eliminating, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and sanctions relief that will strengthen Tehran as a regional power.

Supporting this deal doesn’t make you Neville Chamberlain; opposing it doesn’t make you Dr. Strangelove. Both sides have legitimate arguments. But having studied them, I believe America’s interests are best served now by focusing on how to get the best out of this deal and cushion the worst, rather than scuttling it. That would be a mistake that would isolate us, not Iran, and limit our choices to going to war or tolerating an Iran much closer to nuclear breakout, without any observers or curbs on the ground, and with crumbling sanctions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opini ... inion&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

From the minute Iran detected that the U.S. was unwilling to use its overwhelming military force to curtail Tehran’s nuclear program — and that dates back to the George W. Bush administration, which would neither accept Iran’s right to a nuclear fuel cycle nor structure a military or diplomatic option to stop it — no perfect deal overwhelmingly favorable to America and its allies was ever going to emerge from negotiations with Iran. The balance of power became too equal.

But there are degrees of imperfect, and the diplomatic option structured by the Obama team — if properly implemented and augmented by muscular diplomacy — serves core American interests better than any options I hear coming from the deal’s critics: It prevents Iran from producing the fissile material to break out with a nuclear weapon for 15 years and creates a context that could empower the more pragmatic forces inside Iran over time — at the price of constraining, but not eliminating, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and sanctions relief that will strengthen Tehran as a regional power.

Supporting this deal doesn’t make you Neville Chamberlain; opposing it doesn’t make you Dr. Strangelove. Both sides have legitimate arguments. But having studied them, I believe America’s interests are best served now by focusing on how to get the best out of this deal and cushion the worst, rather than scuttling it. That would be a mistake that would isolate us, not Iran, and limit our choices to going to war or tolerating an Iran much closer to nuclear breakout, without any observers or curbs on the ground, and with crumbling sanctions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opini ... inion&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From DNC "Resident Rationalizer", Thomas Friedman.

Obama could rob, rape and beat to death a mentally handicapped child, and Friedman would argue The President was doing the child a favor.

[D1B]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opini ... inion&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From DNC "Resident Rationalizer", Thomas Friedman.

Obama could rob, rape and beat to death a mentally handicapped child, and Friedman would argue The President was doing the child a favor.

And then there's this:

Politico.com

Fresh off his interview with President Barack Obama, Thomas Friedman on Monday said the U.S. is clueless when it comes to Middle East policy.
“If there’s anything we should have learned from Iraq … it’s that we don’t know what the hell we’re doing,” the New York Times columnist said on MSNBC.

Tman, read a newspaper once in a while.

[Grizalltheway]

What, Breitbart and The Daily Caller aren't good enough?

[travelinman67]

From DNC "Resident Rationalizer", Thomas Friedman.

Obama could rob, rape and beat to death a mentally handicapped child, and Friedman would argue The President was doing the child a favor.

And then there's this:

Politico.com

Fresh off his interview with President Barack Obama, Thomas Friedman on Monday said the U.S. is clueless when it comes to Middle East policy.
“If there’s anything we should have learned from Iraq … it’s that we don’t know what the hell we’re doing,” the New York Times columnist said on MSNBC.

Tman, read a newspaper once in a while.

ANOTHER King Troll FAIL!!

The FULL article, Politico August 11,2014...FRIEDMAN RATIONALIZING OBAMA'S FAILED ISIS RESPONSE/STRATEGY

Thomas Friedman: U.S. clueless in Mideast

 Friedman suggests that Obama is doing what he can in the region with limited options. By JONATHAN TOPAZ
8/11/14 9:22 AM EDT Updated: 8/11/14 10:28 AM EDT

Fresh off his interview with President Barack Obama, Thomas Friedman on Monday said the U.S. is clueless when it comes to Middle East policy.“If there’s anything we should have learned from Iraq … it’s that we don’t know what the hell we’re doing,” the New York Times columnist said on MSNBC.Continue Reading

Friedman suggested that Obama — who has authorized airstrikes against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militants and has weighed arming the Syrian opposition in the country’s civil war — is doing what he can in the region with limited options.
The columnist, who specializes in Middle East issues, suggested that the previous U.S. strategies of full-scale invasion and occupation in Iraq and a targeted mission to destroy Muammar Qadhafi’s regime in Libya and quickly leave had not worked. He added that Obama said in the interview that he is struggling to arm the Syrian opposition because of its heavily extremist elements.
Friedman said a sustainable solution to Iraq would be virtually “impossible,” because it would rely on an international body to commit significant economic and political resources for two or three decades.
Friedman, who interviewed Obama at the White House last Friday, said the fallout from the Arab Spring uprisings should disillusion onlookers who are optimistic about the region.“We thought, starting with Egypt, that the alternative to autocracy was democracy,” he said. “And it’s turned out the alternative to autocracy in that part of the world has been disorder.”

YEAH, read the full article, you stupid fuck!

[D1B]

And then there's this:

Politico.com



Tman, read a newspaper once in a while.

ANOTHER King Troll FAIL!!

The FULL article, Politico August 11,2014...FRIEDMAN RATIONALIZING OBAMA'S FAILED ISIS RESPONSE/STRATEGY

Thomas Friedman: U.S. clueless in Mideast

 Friedman suggests that Obama is doing what he can in the region with limited options. By JONATHAN TOPAZ
8/11/14 9:22 AM EDT Updated: 8/11/14 10:28 AM EDT

Fresh off his interview with President Barack Obama, Thomas Friedman on Monday said the U.S. is clueless when it comes to Middle East policy.“If there’s anything we should have learned from Iraq … it’s that we don’t know what the hell we’re doing,” the New York Times columnist said on MSNBC.Continue Reading

Friedman suggested that Obama — who has authorized airstrikes against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militants and has weighed arming the Syrian opposition in the country’s civil war — is doing what he can in the region with limited options.
The columnist, who specializes in Middle East issues, suggested that the previous U.S. strategies of full-scale iObama could rob, rape and beat to death a mentally handicapped child, and Friedman would argue The President was doing the child a favornvasion and occupation in Iraq and a targeted mission to destroy Muammar Qadhafi’s regime in Libya and quickly leave had not worked. He added that Obama said in the interview that he is struggling to arm the Syrian opposition because of its heavily extremist elements.
Friedman said a sustainable solution to Iraq would be virtually “impossible,” because it would rely on an international body to commit significant economic and political resources for two or three decades.
Friedman, who interviewed Obama at the White House last Friday, said the fallout from the Arab Spring uprisings should disillusion onlookers who are optimistic about the region.“We thought, starting with Egypt, that the alternative to autocracy was democracy,” he said. “And it’s turned out the alternative to autocracy in that part of the world has been disorder.”

YEAH, read the full article, you stupid fuck!

Sooooooo, ummm, "doing what he can" is "Obama could rob, rape and beat to death a mentally handicapped child, and Friedman would argue The President was doing the child a favor?"

TRUMPman6.93 - desperate and dumb.

[travelinman67]

ANOTHER King Troll FAIL!!

The FULL article, Politico August 11,2014...FRIEDMAN RATIONALIZING OBAMA'S FAILED ISIS RESPONSE/STRATEGY



YEAH, read the full article, you stupid fuck!

Sooooooo, ummm, "doing what he can" is "Obama could rob, rape and beat to death a mentally handicapped child, and Friedman would argue The President was doing the child a favor?"

TRUMPman6.93 - desperate and dumb.

I own you, King Troll

[D1B]

Sooooooo, ummm, "doing what he can" is "Obama could rob, rape and beat to death a mentally handicapped child, and Friedman would argue The President was doing the child a favor?"

TRUMPman6.93 - desperate and dumb.

I own you, King Troll

Poor TRUMPman.

[travelinman67]

[D1B]

6.93, bet you were thrilled when you found that one.

[travelinman67]

6.93, bet you were thrilled when you found that one.

King Troll...



I've fucked you up.

[D1B]

6.93, bet you were thrilled when you found that one.

King Troll...



I've fucked you up.

Nice fantasy, 6.93.

[travelinman67]

King Troll...



I've fucked you up.

Nice fantasy, 6.93.

Just like your narrative about my retirement, you make up shit, get blown out of the water, then melt down and go full Troll.

Different day, same ol' D.

What are you now? 50?

Grow the fuck up.

[D1B]

Nice fantasy, 6.93.

Just like your narrative about my retirement, you make up shit, get blown out of the water, then melt down and go full Troll.

Different day, same ol' D.

What are you now? 50?

Grow the fuck up.

Sooooo, ummm, you simply denying something equates to "getting blown out if the water!?"

6.93 - you've lost so much credibility here that the opposite of any of your claims is the truth.

You have no one to blame but yourself.

[Baldy]

[Skjellyfetti]

can we at least agree that it would be cool if iran still had a secular democracy whether they nationalized their oil or not?

[CID1990]

can we at least agree that it would be cool if iran still had a secular democracy whether they nationalized their oil or not?

the last secular democracy Iran had was forced on them with an iron fist

its sort of how we got to where things are today

but yeah, sure

[travelinman67]

can we at least agree that it would be cool if iran had a gigantic amusement park free to everyone in the world, with free rides, refreshments, and cute little bunnies that pooped cotton candy and there was a pretty rainbow all the time, whether they nationalized their oil or not?

"Come closer, little Jellydonut. Sit here by me and I'll sing you a folk song I just wrote called, 'The Infidels Went Up In Smoke'
No here...come real close"

[D1B]

can we at least agree that it would be cool if iran still had a secular democracy whether they nationalized their oil or not?

the last secular democracy Iran had was forced on them with an iron fist

its sort of how we got to where things are today

but yeah, sure

Yeah, uh, it's a much different world today, Lard Ass.

[travelinman67]

Iranians: We want McDonalds...

"DEATH TO AMERICA...DEATH TO AMERICA...DEATH TO AMER...WAIT...WHAT?...mmmmm, McRib!!!"

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/ar ... -84067890/

[kalm]

can we at least agree that it would be cool if iran still had a secular democracy whether they nationalized their oil or not?

the last secular democracy Iran had was forced on them with an iron fist

its sort of how we got to where things are today

but yeah, sure

But weren't they headed toward one on their own decades before that until the west intervened?