Thousands Of Protesters Rally In Times Square Against Iran Nuclear Deal

a reply to: Southern Guardian

What can I say.

The unwavering defense of a country like Iran does get irritating.

Especially from the people that can't stand the religious folks in this country.

*rubs forehead*

And we're OK with Pakistan having nukes? I mean, it's not like they DONT have a bunch of radicalized Islamic terrorists living there...

And if Iran wanted a nuclear bomb, you'd think they'd already have one and we'd have noticed their tests. I mean, if N. Korea can build a nuke but Iran can't ... that tells me Iran wasn't as serious about a nuke as we've been lied to.

Besides, the only reason we're told to hate Iran is because they kicked out a dictator we hated and installed one we didn't personally put into power. From what I'm told, the average Iranian likes Americans.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

And we're OK with Pakistan having nukes?

No not ok with that either.

Great example though.

Pakistan went nuclear. India did not just sit by either. They went nuclear too.

Hell that is why there is so much foreign aid being 'given' to Pakistan.

Trying to buy their 'friendship'.

a reply to: Sremmos80

They offer no real solutions do they? These protesters and the OP. None. I mean they won't outright come out and say they support war cause' that's very unpopular you know? They'll mutter tougher sanctions, as if that'll make any difference given the fact sanctions have been placed on Iran multiple times since 1979. It's clearly been ineffective hence this diplomacy route. But they're not happy. So what else? It's war.

"The Israeli ambassador’s efforts to convince the American Republican members of Congress to reject this historic nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 is continuation of the efforts by Israel to cast Iran as the enemy of the world, and the greatest source of terrorism, which of course we know [that's] exactly what Israel is."

"Very interesting to see who those loudest voices are condemning this deal, because this is the best way to see who is the most deeply in the pocket of Israel and the Zionist lobby."

a reply to: Southern Guardian

It is the same thing from the people in DC that keep saying this is a bad deal.

All we hear is "This was a bad deal, we needed a better deal."
Obama and Kerry got taken yada yada yada.

Pretty sure those same people are just getting around to even reading it.

Us Joe public for damn sure don't know all the ins and outs yet.

At this point it seems people are just mad we dealt with Iran peacefully...
Like you said.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Sremmos80

They offer no real solutions do they? These protesters and the OP. None. I mean they won't outright come out and say they support war cause' that's very unpopular you know? They'll mutter tougher sanctions, as if that'll make any difference given the fact sanctions have been placed on Iran multiple times since 1979. It's clearly been ineffective hence this diplomacy route. But they're not happy. So what else? It's war.

Only ineffective so far as those sanctions never include two countries they should.

Russia, and China.

From where that nuclear tech comes from.

So what 'solutions' does the administration offer than negotiating with religious theocracies?

Just for snips and giggles.

Shockingly lax? Yes. Shortsighted I'm not so sure. Think of it as three constituencies: China in about 1982, under Deng Xiaoping, decided to proliferate nuclear technology to communists and Muslims in the third world. They did so deliberately with the theory that if nukes ended up going off in the western world from a Muslim terrorist, well that wasn't all bad. If New York was reduced to rubble without Chinese fingerprints on the attack, that left Beijing as the last man standing. That's what the old timers thought.

Why China Helped Countries Like Pakistan, North Korea Build Nuclear Bombs

I find it very telling that the same people who called "protestors" thugs, criminals and deadbeats when they protested police brutality and wall street have now all of a sudden realized that "protestors" are all Americans standing up for their Rights.

So if you protest police brutality and murder by cop you're a thug who should be locked up and silenced.

If you protest wall street and bank bailouts and financial fraud you're a hippy deadbeat who should be silenced.

But if you protest a multi nation peace deal with another nation you're an American exercising your Right to Protest.

Funny how things change so quickly.

"Rejecting the deal in Congress would amount to a rejection of not just good faith of the Iranian leadership, but the entire nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), which 198 states currently observe."

list of nations in the non-proliferation treaty - NPT

In the letter I we can see: IRAQ, IRAN, IRELAND, ITALY... but no ISRAEL? wow! Israel war mongering, racist, bias, (terrorist?) nation is out? wait minute .. what amazingly twisted logic we got around here!!

originally posted by: mOjOm
I find it very telling that the same people who called "protestors" thugs, criminals and deadbeats when they protested police brutality and wall street have now all of a sudden realized that "protestors" are all Americans standing up for their Rights.

So if you protest police brutality and murder by cop you're a thug who should be locked up and silenced.

If you protest wall street and bank bailouts and financial fraud you're a hippy deadbeat who should be silenced.

But if you protest a multi nation peace deal with another nation you're an American exercising your Right to Protest.

Funny how things change so quickly.

No there is a simple litmus test.

If Code Pink is involved in a protest in any way, it is an anti American commie endeavor.

Wish there were protests in Times Square about stuff like this...

Trading With the "Enemy": Halliburton & GE Make Millions Trading With Iran

Halliburton Sold Nuclear Tech To Iran

a reply to: mOjOm

I find it very telling that the same people who called "protestors" thugs, criminals and deadbeats when they protested police brutality and wall street have now all of a sudden realized that "protestors" are all Americans standing up for their Rights.

Are they deficating in the streets ?

Are they throwing things?

Are they destroying buildings ?

Are they wearing Guy Fawkes masks?

No.

Big DIFFERENCE.

a reply to: neo96

They called them thugs before any of that happened.

It was from the first protest, and if you still think there was none then you are just sticking your head in the sand.

There are mega threads from the live feeds on this very site that would show you.

It was when the cops showed for and ordered them how and where and when they could protest that most the problems started.

originally posted by: neo96

Are they deficating in the streets ?

Are they throwing things?

Are they destroying buildings ?

Are they wearing Guy Fawkes masks?

No.

Big DIFFERENCE.

When you have thousands of people spanning multiple cities and protesting for days on end and being attacked by swat, run over by cars, being slandered in the media, etc. there will usually be some people that get out of hand. Clearly the majority weren't doing any of those things and shouldn't be lumped together as the same.

Code Pink also is one group of women and does not represent the entire protest movement either.

You can make excuses all you want but clearly there is a bias of opinion. Either you believe in the right for people to protest or you don't. Some however only support a protest when they agree with what is being protested and that is just hypocritical.

a reply to: neo96

Only ineffective so far as those sanctions never include two countries they should.

Russia, and China.

From where that nuclear tech comes from.

That's a good observation Neo. And surely, knowing that Russia and China will not join in on sanctions considering it's in their best interests to have a strong Iran and maintain strong relations (Russia especially), you know sanctions from the west are useless. So what else Neo? Hmm? It seems like this administration has come with something to the table. What solution do you have then if not sanctions from the west since they're clearly ineffective as you admitted?

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Sanction both Russia, and China right along with Iran.

Furthering adding sanctions to Saudi.

Going one further step in BANNING the middle east oil. Like African blood diamonds were.

Watch how fast things get quiet there.

That is what I would do.

a reply to: neo96

Sanction both Russia, and China right along with Iran.

So let me get this straight. You want us to put sanctions on Russia as well (we are already doing this) and China as well (probably our biggest trading partner) all because they don't politically agree with us on the matter of Iran? Seems abit extreme and unrealistic don't you think? How much support do you think you'll get putting sanctions on China, both domestically and internationally? hmm?

a reply to: neo96

Don't we have sanctions over Russia already?

Now sanctions against China probably not a good idea since they own so much US debt.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Seems abit extreme and unrealistic don't you think?

As opposed to going to full scale war ?

That's tame compared to the alternative.

How much support do you think you'll get putting sanctions on China, both domestically and internationally?

Quite a bit considering how much of the west business is there.

The money dries up. So does the money funding those regimes.