Topic: 29 U.S. Scientists Praise Iran Nuclear Deal (Read 1406 times)
LOL. So many shill accounts in one thread alone! All of them with the same bullshit against the deal, and created between June 19 and June 28. Several on the same day. How much are you getting paid to post here shill?
I'll take a short detour off topic here to point out that the only thing Republicans have told me (or anyone) since Obama was first elected is that they intended to totally wreck his presidency with the understanding if that messed up the country, that would be ok with them. Then they went and did their best to do it.
If you think Iran isnt going to obtain nuclear weapons through this deal...I have magic beans for sale that you will be interested in. Ill even throw in some cure all elixr! Only three easy payments of 49.99
Oh tell us KriszDev with your vast knowledge of Nuclear Science.
What items do they need for a nuclear weapon?
Well that settles it ! Its a good deal because 29 scientist said so!
I'll take a short detour off topic here to point out that the only thing Republicans have told me (or anyone) since Obama was first elected is that they intended to totally wreck his presidency with the understanding if that messed up the country, that would be ok with them. Then they went and did their best to do it.
If you think Iran isnt going to obtain nuclear weapons through this deal...I have magic beans for sale that you will be interested in. Ill even throw in some cure all elixr! Only three easy payments of 49.99
If you watched the seven Republican second tier candidates have their debate Thursday afternoon, Sen. Graham came out very strongly in favor of invading Iran led by American troops with Arab allies, supposedly to stop their march toward a nuke and teach them a lesson about exporting terrorism. He'd also invade Syria at the same time, but that would be pretty much a side war.
Of course he did he is a warmonger... But dont forget this same guy stood right with Obama to arm these "Rebels" to being with.
2 sides of the same coin.
Conservatives will yell about crowds chanting "death to America" and then conveniently forget that a US Presidential candidate said "Bomb, bomb,bomb,......bomb, bomb Iran" a sentiment you see here (and no doubt in the AM talk radio sewer) every single day.
If you watched the seven Republican second tier candidates have their debate Thursday afternoon, Sen. Graham came out very strongly in favor of invading Iran led by American troops with Arab allies, supposedly to stop their march toward a nuke and teach them a lesson about exporting terrorism. He'd also invade Syria at the same time, but that would be pretty much a side war.
I've already read what genuinely credible experts have written on the subject and so why would I read what a bunch of scientists gathered up by the Obama administration have written FOR the Dem Party on the subject?
I'd like to see what Government Grants those "scientists" are getting for 2016.
Doesn't matter - according to you, physicists are incapable of understanding high level politics and policy. Yet you are very comfortable with a neurosurgeon being president. Hypocrisy, much ?
Am I? Did I say that?
Oh Goody. First the Left denounces all sources of moral authority in the universe and then they adopt the mantle of "science" to claim their agenda has the moral authority that none with a sound mind can reject.
So, they gave a thumbs up on the Iran deal... eh? What do they think about sugar beet subsidies?
So, they gave a thumbs up on the Iran deal... eh? What do they think about sugar beet subsidies?
He's a physicist pimping for the Obama administration? Who knew!
Doesn't matter - according to you, physicists are incapable of understanding high level politics and policy. Yet you are very comfortable with a neurosurgeon being president. Hypocrisy, much ?
Iran is a big trading partner with Iran and they enjoy a pretty good relationship, however KSA spends tons of money on aid to Pakistan and in a pinch Pakistan would definitely side with Saudi Arabia.
Yes, and I was correct about them as well. I knew that they were wrong, which is why I endlessly posted against the Iraq War Venture and AGAINST staying in Afghanistan, because as a student of history I knew how it would almost inevitably turn out. I am also correct about this bad 'deal' with Iran.
No, you aren't.
This deal is supported by every major power on the planet. If it fails, the international sanctions that Obama got put in place (after Bush was unable to convince anyone to go along with him) will crumble and Iran will not only be free from any responsibility to submit to inspections, but it will have considerably less economic pressure on it to do so as well.
I cannot guarantee whether this deal will prevent Iran from getting a bomb eventually. Iran is surrounded on all four sides by enemies with atomic weapons (Russia, Pakistan, Isreal and the United States), It has every reason to nuke up, a reality that will be a certainty if the right wing and Isreal destroy this deal.
The best opportunity we have is to get Iran to open up to the outside world. It isn't a guarantee. But we've had thirty years of the opposite approach and it hasn't worked.
Conservatives will yell about crowds chanting "death to America" and then conveniently forget that a US Presidential candidate said "Bomb, bomb,bomb,......bomb, bomb Iran" a sentiment you see here (and no doubt in the AM talk radio sewer) every single day.
It's odd that you seem to take validation from the exact same group of experts that claimed the Iraq was a good idea.
Are you a high level physicist or a high level politician?
If only high level physicist or high level politicians were the only ones who knew anything of importance or could use their brain for something other than a hat rack then all upper level politicians would have to have a degree in physics. More to the point one would be obliged to declare high level politicians G.W. Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld . . . correct. Oh my!
Yet this brilliant neurosurgeon is a right wing darling - go figure
He's a physicist pimping for the Obama administration? Who knew!
Most of the "genuinely credible experts" are for the deal.
The exception are the neo cons. You know, the guys who said the Iraq war would last six months and be self financing and that there was no tension between Sunni and Shia muslims.
The exception are the neo cons. You know, the guys who said the Iraq war would last six months and be self financing and that there was no tension between Sunni and Shia muslims.
Schumer and Engel are Neo-Cons?
Most of the "genuinely credible experts" are for the deal.
The exception are the neo cons. You know, the guys who said the Iraq war would last six months and be self financing and that there was no tension between Sunni and Shia muslims.
The exception are the neo cons. You know, the guys who said the Iraq war would last six months and be self financing and that there was no tension between Sunni and Shia muslims.
Yes, and I was correct about them as well. I knew that they were wrong, which is why I endlessly posted against the Iraq War Venture and AGAINST staying in Afghanistan, because as a student of history I knew how it would almost inevitably turn out. I am also correct about this bad 'deal' with Iran.
I think its hilarious that they are brought up as credible sources in something like this. It sure hurts the Global Warming agenda.....
Why do eminently qualified nuclear scientists commenting on a subject well within the range of their expertise have diddlysquat to do with global warming?
Nope it doesn't. Nothing in the link demonstrates how these most-likely Democrat leaning and liberal progressive-oriented scientists are qualified to say that we can trust Iran with this deal.
We don't trust Iran. Nobody does. That's a given and why the agreement was made the way it was. Your statement exhibits a total lack of knowledge on the subject.
Quote
I didn't see anything about how billions funding terrorism is a good thing.
That has zip to do with Iran and nukes and is not part of the agreement. Never was, AFAIK.
I've already read what genuinely credible experts have written on the subject and so why would I read what a bunch of scientists gathered up by the Obama administration have written FOR the Dem Party on the subject?
Most of the "genuinely credible experts" are for the deal.The exception are the neo cons. You know, the guys who said the Iraq war would last six months and be self financing and that there was no tension between Sunni and Shia muslims.
Secondly you don't need to be a scientist to grasp the concept that allowing Iran nuclear weaponry is the exact wrong thing to do, you just need a functioning half a brain.
Iran is not being allowed nuclear weaponry. That is the purpose of the agreement. And if you want to say that it will have no effect on them working on or obtaining nukes, you'll have to have a few more facts to round out your political fantasies.
Jump to: