"If only..... If only...."
-Hades, HERCULES

:D

Michale

Hopefully it will come to you BEFORE Tel Aviv or Haifa is nothing but a nuclear hole in the ground.. :D

Michale

Yet, Obama has explicitly stated that Iran is violating the spirit of the JCPOA..

So, according to Obama, it's NOT working as advertised...

Michale

That wasn't the goal of the JCPOA, that is a continuing work in progress within the context of the successful JCPOA implementation. A work in progress that is currently not showing a lot of progress but one in which more effort and patience will be required, assuming the context of a successful implementation of the JCPOA.

No overt goings on there!? You can't be serious!

False. Demonstrably.

The goal of the JCPOA to restrict Iran's nuclear program to a strictly peaceful utility was to ... wait for it ... restrict Iran's nuclear program to a strictly peaceful utility.

So far, it has worked as advertised. Consequently, Israel is much safer, if you believe PM Netanyahu's assertions about how unsafe Israel was in the months and years before the JCPOA was completed.

No overt goings on there!? You can't be serious!

That's funny considering how ya'all TOTALLY denigrated and attacked Bush for so many things that ya'all give Obama a pass for..

If THAT's not an ideological agenda at work, what is?? :D

What are the most significant ways in which Iran's nuclear program has changed during the months since the JCPOA was signed by the P3+3 countries?

They have accelerated their ballistic missile program and their attacks on other countries..

Of course, you want to limit the discussion to the nuclear program because there is no overt goings on there...

But the goal of the JCPOA was to bring Iran into the international community.. And THAT goal is a dismal failure..

Don't take my word for it.. Even OBAMA says that Iran is violating the spirit of the JCPOA..

I noticed how you ignore that.. :D

Michale

Michale,

What are the most significant ways in which Iran's nuclear program has changed during the months since the JCPOA was signed by the P3+3 countries?

Try and stick to the facts of Iran's nuclear program as it is currently constituted as compared to what the situation was in this regard before the JCPOA, when Prime Minister Netanyahu feverishly addressed the United States congress on this very subject.

You are the only one here, save for possibly one or two, who has an ideological agenda.

Which is why it is futile, more often than not, to attempt to discuss anything of political consequence with you.

Obviously, you are not going to abandon that tack. Which is a shame, as there are many worthwhile discussions to be had and this is the ideal place for it.

That is about as ass-backwards as is humanly possible to achieve, not surprisingly.

That is not what I meant.

Let's try that again!

That is about as ass-backwards as is humanly possible to achieve, not surprisingly.

An opinion based on fact is more reliable than an opinion based on ... well, based on less than the facts.

Exactly..

And my opinion is based on FACTS.. AND experience, training and expertise.. PLUS Obama's own statements that Iran is not fulfilling the spirit of the JCPOA..

Whereas they only thing ya'all have in yer corners is an ideological agenda.. :D

Michale

referring to something as safe, unsafe, more safe or less safe are not factual statements - they are statements of opinion, regardless of whether or not those opinions are well-supported by facts.

Fine..

I am willing to concede that my statements regarding the viability of the JCPOA vis a vis the safety of Israel is an opinion, backed up by decades of experience in the military and security career fields..

IF....

If those who think the JCPOA is the best thing since frozen pizza are willing to concede that THEIR statements are also opinions backed up by nothing but an ideological agenda..

Deal?? :D

Michale

Israel is infinitely safer today than it was before the JCPOA, if you believe the Netanyahu rhetoric in the months and indeed years leading up to the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P3+3 countries.

Yea??? What about those Ballistic Missiles that have TEL AVIV and HAIFA written on them??

You call that "SAFER"???

Let me guess, Michale, you're a fan of the novel, 1984, right?

Considering ya'all's support of Obama's domestic surveillance and whistleblower prosecutions, I could ask ya'all the same question, eh? :D

Listen,

Remind me, again, what "right" that is and where exactly in the Constitution is it mentioned?

You DO realize that the US Constitution is NOT the sole province of rights... Right?? :D

. If you want to know what is said at one of her fund raisers, all you have to do is donate the required gift.

It's all about the money with the Left Wingery, ain't it? :D

If you want to hear her corporate speech, hire her to give it to your company.

Hillary is asking for my vote.. THAT gives me the right to know what she said to those 'evil' corporations..

If she wants to hide what she said, then she has no right to expect ANYONE to vote for her...

Neil,

It wasn't appeasement - it was "Stand down Iran" -

And it magnificently and impressively FAILED...

The deal with Iran was us holding up our side of the deal whose terms we dictated - the sanctions imposed for the nuclear program would be dropped if Iran stopped the program and allowed verification.

The deal with Iran was ALSO supposed to "bring Iran into the international community" and have them stop other bad things like terrorism and ballistic missile testing..

The deal with Iran has failed..

"Failed.. Failed... IMPRESSIVELY failed."
-NASA Doctor, ARMAGEDDON

We imposed the terms of the deal, Iran capitulated under the concerted and uniform pressure from the coalition that included China and Russia.

We won.

Yea.. Tell that to the families of the people killed by Iran's terrorism. I am sure THEY will believe you, Charlie Sheen... :D

Michale

It wasn't appeasement - it was "Stand down Iran" - the right-wing-o-sphere can't get anything right if it means that they might have to give Obama credit.

The deal with Iran was us holding up our side of the deal whose terms we dictated - the sanctions imposed for the nuclear program would be dropped if Iran stopped the program and allowed verification.

We imposed the terms of the deal, Iran capitulated under the concerted and uniform pressure from the coalition that included China and Russia.

We won.

Remind me, again, what "right" that is and where exactly in the Constitution is it mentioned? Funny, you always seem to think everything you agree with is someone's "right". If you want to know what is said at one of her fund raisers, all you have to do is donate the required gift. If you want to hear her corporate speech, hire her to give it to your company.

Where have you been, Michale? Haven't you heard that 'experience' is now a four-letter word. :)

Israel is infinitely safer today than it was before the JCPOA, if you believe the Netanyahu rhetoric in the months and indeed years leading up to the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P3+3 countries.

Let me guess, Michale, you're a Netanyahu fan, too.

I LOVE that guy!!! :D

In the vernacular of the military, he is a LEADER...

Neil,

In fact, in just about every way this deal has made the world safer.

I disagree.. And I have two and a half decades of experience to back it up...

PLUS over 80 years of history...

Appeasement *NEVER* works...

*EVER*...

Michale

Fact: Israel is in the middle-east.

Fact: Netanyahu is the elected leader of Israel.

Opinion: Netanyahu made a poor decision by throwing in with the Rebublicans

Opinion: The Iran deal made us more/less safe.

Perhaps Arthur can clear this up:

http://pbskids.org/arthur/games/factsopinions/factsopinions.html

These are right-wing-o-sphere blowhard talk, and completely disputable.

In fact, in just about every way this deal has made the world safer. It has pissed off:

1. Israel - they wanted us to fight their war for them
2. Saudi Arabia - they are busy drumming up a proxy war with their old allies, Iran, probably to 'pull a Putin' to keep their homies distracted
3. Republicans who are against anything Obama is for. If Obama had pulled the plug on the deal early, your point would have been 'Obama is putting everybody at risk by letting the coalition against Iran fall apart' - which it certainly would have done as China and Russia weren't going to stay on board much longer anyway.

I guess that's up to Mrs Sanders... :D

Michale

"Gold, I like you. You remind me a lot of this famous country singer from Texas I'm crazy about, a fellow calls himself Kinky Friedman, the Original Texas Jewboy. Kinky's smarter, but I like you more."

Joseph Heller, Good as Gold

....but don't automatically assume Sanders = Kinky.

Yer in stereo!!! :D

Michale

My immediate reaction to The Final Debate was:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2016/04/13/the-15-revolution/#comment-73837

To me, the modern broadcast version of a Presidential Debate is an awful lot like watching the mating rituals of tropical birds on PBS...vocalization, lots of dancing, bobbing, spreading of plumage etc. All the apparent silliness is somehow vital to political fitness. Rather than moderators, what viewers need is a political David Attenborough explaining (in hushed tones) what's going on and why, in real time. What we get, sadly, is Wolf Blitzer popping up now and then with a vacuous remark.

Both Clinton and Sanders are effective debaters, but with distinctly different styles. Clinton has fancy footwork, Sanders is more of a puncher. As these things go, the final bout was a good one.

It was Obama that did that when he sided with Iran against Israel..

He is playing with fire, literally, when he stakes Israel's security on a Republican party that is headed toward the political wilderness for a very long time, number one, and, number two, on a Republican party that does not have the best interests of Israel uppermost on its agenda.

And THAT's a load of malarkey.. It's evidence that Israel's security is in better hands with the GOP than with Democrats..

Biga's anti-Semitism proves that beyond any doubt because THAT is the rule with the Left Wingery...

Michale

He is playing with fire, literally, when he stakes Israel's security on a Republican party that is headed toward the political wilderness for a very long time, number one, and, number two, on a Republican party that does not have the best interests of Israel uppermost on its agenda.

Obama put the needs and desires of an enemy before the needs and desires of an ally..

Netanyahu's disrespect of Obama is completely and unequivocally logical and deserved..

Israel is LESS safe now, than it was before the JCPOA..

As it has been abundantly proven beyond any doubt, Obama's appeasement of Iran hasn't produced the desired effect. Iran has NO desire to join the International community and it's obvious to all that Iran was just playing Obama to get much sought after billions of dollars to continue their ballistic missile work..

Obama has made the region AND the world less safe...

These are the facts. And they are indisputable...

Michale

Details, man!! :D

Michale

Because that's NOT her reasoning.. It's yours.. But I must admit, it's pretty fanciful... And almost logical...

Why should she give away a speech for free that corporations will pay back big money to hear her give at their event?

Because the people have a right to know what she is telling big and evil corporations.. Is it the same thing she is telling Joe & Jane SixPack???

Hillary's integrity and honesty quotient is in the toilet... Every time she evades and hides things, her quotient sinks lower and lower...

If Hillary wants to be POTUS, she needs to be transparent..

THAT is why she should release those transcripts.. The fact that she refuses proves it in the minds of Americans that she is hiding something...

Michale

Why do people think that they are entitled to something for free that others pay a large amount of money to receive? This is also the issue with the recent complaints that Hillary used white noise machines to keep people from hearing her speak at a fund raiser held outdoors. People paid $30,000 a couple to be at that fundraiser. Do you think people would feel cheated if they could have heard the same message for free just by standing across the street? Hillary does speaking engagements as a side job like most high level politicians do when they leave office. Why should she give away a speech for free that corporations will pay back big money to hear her give at their event?

Why Clinton hasn't just been straight forward with her reasoning is beyond me.