52% of Americans Think Congress Should Kill Iran Nuclear Deal? Clearly They Love Being At War

a reply to: Krazysh0t


You can check my created threads and find it quite easily.

Having just been chastised for a supposed thread drift comment a couple days ago, no...I am avoiding thread drift.
Iran is not China nor Japan. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You can check my created threads and find it quite easily.

So much for common courtesy and proper debate etiquette then... But nah, I'm not going to do YOUR legwork for you. No matter HOW easy it may be for me. You made the claim, you produce the evidence. Until then you are a liar in my eyes.

Having just been chastised for a supposed thread drift comment a couple days ago, no...I am avoiding thread drift.
Iran is not China nor Japan. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

Fine. Then start producing some evidence of your claims of proxy attacks OUTSIDE of this stupid saber rattling incident then. You said attacks, which is plural. So there MUST be more than just the one we can talk about.

I would conclude from this that 52% of Americans are ignorant.

But there are many polls, phrased in many ways...as always, so I give this 52% number very little credence to begin with...if that helps the sting of my conclusion/opinion.

a reply to: Ultralight

You obviously think you have authority over what I get to do. You don't.

When did I say I had that right?

I do not support this "deal" .

So you would support a war? Because seeing how sanctions really wasn't working that is the only other resort.

It's funny that many of us in the western world wish there were a Middle East nation that could break away from the tyranny and theocracy that grips many of those nations, but we do not wish to support a nation that is on the brink of doing just that.

Iran is very pro-western and wishes to join the modern era, but they have been held back by sanctions, coups manipulated by outside forces and when they don't follow the will of those outside forces, we place sanctions on them and call them a terrorist state.

What ever happened to diplomacy? What ever happened to talking to people and conducting trade, rather than cow-towing to political pressure and forcing our will on people?

We need to strike a deal with Iran and move on.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You can check my created threads and find it quite easily.

So much for common courtesy and proper debate etiquette then... But nah, I'm not going to do YOUR legwork for you. No matter HOW easy it may be for me. You made the claim, you produce the evidence. Until then you are a liar in my eyes.

Having just been chastised for a supposed thread drift comment a couple days ago, no...I am avoiding thread drift.
Iran is not China nor Japan. Comparing them is apples and oranges.

Fine. Then start producing some evidence of your claims of proxy attacks OUTSIDE of this stupid saber rattling incident then. You said attacks, which is plural. So there MUST be more than just the one we can talk about.

Beruit Bombing

Khobar Towers

Support for Insurgents in the Iraq War

Following the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iran undermined U.S. operations by "consistently [supplying] weapons, its own advisors, and Lebanese Hezbollah advisors to multiple residence groups in Iraq, both Sunni and Shia,” which targeted Coalition Forces. For the U.S., “concern [revolved] around Iran’s role in arming and assisting Shiite militias.” In Iraq, the "the top killer of U.S. troops” were IEDs (improvised explosive devices), which were primarily supplied by Iran. In total, Iran’s support for Iraqi insurgents led to the death of thousands of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. In 2010, U.S. ambassador to Iraq James Jeffery stated, "Up to a quarter [4,400] of the American casualties and some of the more horrific incidents in which Americans were kidnapped ... can be traced without doubt to these Iranian groups."

Weekly Standard
New York Times
Al Arabyia

Afghanistan

Iranian support for the Taliban against U.S. troops in Afghanistan has been ongoing since at least 2006. According to a RAND report, "although Iran has traditionally backed Tajik and Shi'a groups opposed to the Taliban, its enmity with the United States and tensions over the nuclear program… led it to provide measured support to the Taliban." According to the Treasury Department, “since at least 2006, Iran has arranged frequent shipments of small arms and associated ammunition, rocket propelled grenades, mortar rounds, 107 mm rockets, plastic explosives, and probably man-portable defense systems to the Taliban." Through “Qods force material support,” the report states “we believe Iran is seeking to inflict casualties on U.S. and NATO forces.” In 2010, multiple media sources reported Iran was “paying Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they kill in Afghanistan.” Over a six-month period in 2010, one “Taliban treasurer” claimed to have collected “more than $77,000 from [an Iranian firm in Kabul]” as payment for killing Americans.

Rand
Treasury.Gov
NBC News

Iran has been a leading state sponsor of terrorism and it has been having a proxy war with the west since 1979

a reply to: IanFleming

Well at least SOMEONE is willing to back up that argument...

So you highlighted this piece of information:

According to a RAND report, "although Iran has traditionally backed Tajik and Shi'a groups opposed to the Taliban, its enmity with the United States and tensions over the nuclear program… led it to provide measured support to the Taliban."

It seems like with the US adopting more peaceful relations with Iran, it is possible that Iran's involvement in terrorism will drop. Especially if their meddling is a direct result of the US' sanctions over the nuclear program.

a reply to: IanFleming

Iran has been a leading state sponsor of terrorism and it has been having a proxy war with the west since 1979

So Iran providing weapons to their allies who then use them to attack America who is in their nation makes Iran a state sponsor of terrorism? By all rights seeing how America arms far more rebel groups than Iran like in Syria makes America a state sponsor of terrorism as well. So why is Iran only labeled as a state sponsor of terrorism?

originally posted by: buster2010
a reply to: IanFleming

Iran has been a leading state sponsor of terrorism and it has been having a proxy war with the west since 1979

So Iran providing weapons to their allies who then use them to attack America who is in their nation makes Iran a state sponsor of terrorism? By all rights seeing how America arms far more rebel groups than Iran like in Syria makes America a state sponsor of terrorism as well. So why is Iran only labeled as a state sponsor of terrorism?

Giving money and materiel to terrorists to blow up embassies and highjack civilian airliners makes them a state sponsor of terrorism.

Giving weapons and aid to enemy combatants is engaging in a proxy war.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IanFleming

Well at least SOMEONE is willing to back up that argument...

So you highlighted this piece of information:

According to a RAND report, "although Iran has traditionally backed Tajik and Shi'a groups opposed to the Taliban, its enmity with the United States and tensions over the nuclear program… led it to provide measured support to the Taliban."

It seems like with the US adopting more peaceful relations with Iran, it is possible that Iran's involvement in terrorism will drop. Especially if their meddling is a direct result of the US' sanctions over the nuclear program.

It's been going on since 1979. As long as the religious zealots remain in power, they will not slack off.

a reply to: IanFleming

But all your sources talk about proxy sponsoring POST 9/11.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IanFleming

But all your sources talk about proxy sponsoring POST 9/11.

Lebanon was in the early 1980's.
Beirut bombing was in 1983.

a reply to: IanFleming

Well I still don't see any reason to not have a peace accord with Iran. Sanctions weren't working (and you proved were making the situation worse) and I CERTAINLY don't want a real war, so peace talks it is!

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: IanFleming

Well I still don't see any reason to not have a peace accord with Iran. Sanctions weren't working (and you proved were making the situation worse) and I CERTAINLY don't want a real war, so peace talks it is!

A part of peace talks involves a give and take. This set seems rather one-sided.

The sanctions should be re-authorized but held in abeyance to hold over them to ensure they comply with the terms. Our terms should be more definite and concrete than are now.

a reply to: IanFleming

Giving weapons and aid to enemy combatants is engaging in a proxy war.

Were the Contras fighting a proxy war? No they were terrorist plain and simple.

a reply to: IanFleming

It works for me, and most of the rest of the world seems to like it. Only the pro-Israel crowd, Israel, and the Israel Lobby (and their stooges in Congress) seem to have a problem with it. I wonder why that is exactly? Hmmmmm...

a reply to: IanFleming

The sanctions should be re-authorized but held in abeyance to hold over them to ensure they comply with the terms. Our terms should be more definite and concrete than are now.

What are the terms? Have the terms been released to the public?

If Iran is so evil and a threat both before the installing of the Shah and after and the need for sanctions, then wouldn't that make the popular president named Reagan a traitor?

We made Iran a big, bad boogeyman -- and allowed Israel to dictate international politics to us regarding Iran.

It's all smoke and mirrors, the actual people of Iran would love nothing more than a closer relationship with the West.

The next time you hear a US politician ranting and raving about Iran, think about who's pocket that person is in, what their agenda is, and who continuing an aggressive posture toward Iran would benefit.

a reply to: tinymind

Much like yourself, Jesse, I have seen combat so have a first hand knowledge of what it is like.

Mr. Ventura is a Viet Nam veteran not a combat veteran. He was in the Philippines during the war. Praise him for his service, but don't get the facts twisted (one combat vet to another).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

The deal will allow Iran to have nuclear capability in a decade. We already see the beginnings of a potential arms race in the ME as a result of the deal. Are people really saying that countries that fund suicide bombers are the right countries to have nuclear capability?

As long as the harsh realities come to light after President Obama leaves office someone else can shoulder the blame I suppose. In the mean time, he has once again kowtowed to a radical Islamic country and bowed to their will.

No big surprise that the left supports him in this.