US Iran agreement...


moralist

Recommended Posts

Tony:

His ability to critically analyze approaches zero when it comes to history.

When the "history" supports his/her alternate reality, it is good and correct history, when it doesn't it is contested history and therefore dismissible.

Tony, I do not know whether you went to college or not, my strong feeling is that you did, however, I do not believe you ever mentioned it.

If you did, college today is so abhorrently anti intellectual and anti critical reasoning that you would be stunned into temporary silence.

A...

We have worse, Adam. Education is put forward as the panacea to cure all wrongs, but quality of thinking is left far behind. At least (I notice) you have still a strong work ethic of pupils in the US, driven to scholastic success. A sense of entitlement seeping down from our government officials has given many, if not most youngsters here, the idea that they don't have to study hard to get ahead, aided by low standards of Matric pass. Reality hits later - if they enter universities the large majority fails or drops out.

I agree, in general, analytical skill is lacking, but also evaluative ability too. In this way facts become detached from value, as you notice. From that develops a short range pragmaticism, i.e. whatever seems to work for now, is enough.

(Not forgetting a transcending universal morality which ennobles self-sacrifice and that 'the good', is the good for the greater number).

Opinions on Israel (which everybody has) are revealing at high-lighting today's paucity of analysis and evaluation.

If one cares to dig up the premises of anti-Israel sentiments, the average thinking goes:

"It is better for you Israelis to sacrifice your children's lives, your country's existence, and the future of Jews, than that a single Palestinian child is killed".

Few are honest enough to say it outright, but they insinuate it. All evade the fact that Israel has been the real and only petitioner for peace, all along. Clearly, war and conquest can not be in the interest of an already successfully commercial nation. Or that in reality, anyone continously initiating conflicts with a vastly more powerful neighbor is callously inviting accidental death on their children. Or that Israel fully controlled Gaza (and inhabited it with some Israelis) until not long ago, but relinquished it to its own independence. And that it is the Jews who place a greater value in life than their enemies do - to the degree of putting their own soldiers in danger to try to avoid killing civilians.

Well-evidenced facts - inconvenient ones, to our modern intellectuals who 1. have a fixed idea of 'morality' and 2. who can't properly identify and evaluate the facts anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Was part of Operation Magic Carpet, I guess it has a different name but it's the same thing only a different time and country.

As for whether Jews should have stayed in the Middle East, I don't claim to be able to predict alternate histories but now that there are basically zero jews in the middle east outside of Israel (and Iran) the situation becomes harder to resolve peacefully. Think about it, part of the reason the US can negotiate treaties with almost any country in the world is because there are citizens of almost every country in the world in the US.

As for defensive and offensive violence, I do understand those concepts. But I don't think they apply too well to the situation in the middle east. People have been fighting there for centuries and everybody claims they're using defensive violence and their enemy is using offensive violence but they have different religions, and languages and histories etc so they continue to fight amongst themselves. The US should not have any long term interests in the region, it's too unstable.

Israel does not have the military capacity to control much land outside of its borders, it's military is too small and there are too many people who hate jews near Israel. Its military is very strong (partly because of a nationwide draft which is completely immoral) but there is a significant anti-war movement in Israel. The more land it controls, the harder it becomes to control it and the more likely it is for another country to attack it. It's military strategy of occasionally using excessive force (in conflicts where the aggressor is hard to discern but Mossad and Israeli intelligence can often concoct a convince story to make Israel look like the defender) is practical in the short term, but not in the long term.

It's not clear to me what a practical long term strategy for Israel should be. I do not think the US can save Israel.

You say you understand the difference between defensive and offensive, but then say differently - about "the middle east", stating (in effect) : They are always fighting so what's the difference why, and who wins, who loses?

Youve made it clear that it's been not practical (only) for Israel to initiate violence (of a non-defensive nature) not acknowledging nor apparently recognizing, that Israel would not do so on principle - that is, morally. Even over the past several decades when it held the nukes and overwhelming military power to do so.

This in itself is an amoral argument. By invoking belligerent equivalence you imply moral equivalence and therefore put paid to morality.

I'm curious: What is "morality" to you? is there any action or any person in your frame, that is or was "moral"? Do you judge everything only by pragmatism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was part of Operation Magic Carpet, I guess it has a different name but it's the same thing only a different time and country.

As for whether Jews should have stayed in the Middle East, I don't claim to be able to predict alternate histories but now that there are basically zero jews in the middle east outside of Israel (and Iran) the situation becomes harder to resolve peacefully. Think about it, part of the reason the US can negotiate treaties with almost any country in the world is because there are citizens of almost every country in the world in the US.

As for defensive and offensive violence, I do understand those concepts. But I don't think they apply too well to the situation in the middle east. People have been fighting there for centuries and everybody claims they're using defensive violence and their enemy is using offensive violence but they have different religions, and languages and histories etc so they continue to fight amongst themselves. The US should not have any long term interests in the region, it's too unstable.

Israel does not have the military capacity to control much land outside of its borders, it's military is too small and there are too many people who hate jews near Israel. Its military is very strong (partly because of a nationwide draft which is completely immoral) but there is a significant anti-war movement in Israel. The more land it controls, the harder it becomes to control it and the more likely it is for another country to attack it. It's military strategy of occasionally using excessive force (in conflicts where the aggressor is hard to discern but Mossad and Israeli intelligence can often concoct a convince story to make Israel look like the defender) is practical in the short term, but not in the long term.

It's not clear to me what a practical long term strategy for Israel should be. I do not think the US can save Israel.

You say you understand the difference between defensive and offensive, but then say differently - about "the middle east", stating (in effect) : They are always fighting so what's the difference why, and who wins, who loses?

Youve made it clear that it's been not practical (only) for Israel to initiate violence (of a non-defensive nature) not acknowledging nor apparently recognizing, that Israel would not do so on principle - that is, morally. Even over the past several decades when it held the nukes and overwhelming military power to do so.

This in itself is an amoral argument. By invoking belligerent equivalence you imply moral equivalence and therefore put paid to morality.

I'm curious: What is "morality" to you? is there any action or any person in your frame, that is or was "moral"? Do you judge everything only by pragmatism?

Do you have any idea how much fallout Israel's nukes would cause? Aside from the international response and condemnation, they'd have to deal with the fallout themselves. Israel continues to fight assymetric warfare, that is they attack opponents who are weaker than they are and kill tens or hundreds times more people than they lose. And large regions of oil would not be accessible, driving energy prices way up.

Morality is practicality in the long term. Can you give me a long term practical solution for Israel's continued existence in the middle east (especially considering the historical precedence of countries in that region lasting about 100 years on average)?

@Greg, the curse came when the Ottoman Empire fell. Israel's significance is religious and geopolitical (due to its proximity to the Suez Canal) in importance, hardly curse worthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was part of Operation Magic Carpet, I guess it has a different name but it's the same thing only a different time and country.

As for whether Jews should have stayed in the Middle East, I don't claim to be able to predict alternate histories but now that there are basically zero jews in the middle east outside of Israel (and Iran) the situation becomes harder to resolve peacefully. Think about it, part of the reason the US can negotiate treaties with almost any country in the world is because there are citizens of almost every country in the world in the US.

As for defensive and offensive violence, I do understand those concepts. But I don't think they apply too well to the situation in the middle east. People have been fighting there for centuries and everybody claims they're using defensive violence and their enemy is using offensive violence but they have different religions, and languages and histories etc so they continue to fight amongst themselves. The US should not have any long term interests in the region, it's too unstable.

Israel does not have the military capacity to control much land outside of its borders, it's military is too small and there are too many people who hate jews near Israel. Its military is very strong (partly because of a nationwide draft which is completely immoral) but there is a significant anti-war movement in Israel. The more land it controls, the harder it becomes to control it and the more likely it is for another country to attack it. It's military strategy of occasionally using excessive force (in conflicts where the aggressor is hard to discern but Mossad and Israeli intelligence can often concoct a convince story to make Israel look like the defender) is practical in the short term, but not in the long term.

It's not clear to me what a practical long term strategy for Israel should be. I do not think the US can save Israel.

You say you understand the difference between defensive and offensive, but then say differently - about "the middle east", stating (in effect) : They are always fighting so what's the difference why, and who wins, who loses?

Youve made it clear that it's been not practical (only) for Israel to initiate violence (of a non-defensive nature) not acknowledging nor apparently recognizing, that Israel would not do so on principle - that is, morally. Even over the past several decades when it held the nukes and overwhelming military power to do so.

This in itself is an amoral argument. By invoking belligerent equivalence you imply moral equivalence and therefore put paid to morality.

I'm curious: What is "morality" to you? is there any action or any person in your frame, that is or was "moral"? Do you judge everything only by pragmatism?

Do you have any idea how much fallout Israel's nukes would cause? Aside from the international response and condemnation, they'd have to deal with the fallout themselves. Israel continues to fight assymetric warfare, that is they attack opponents who are weaker than they are and kill tens or hundreds times more people than they lose. And large regions of oil would not be accessible, driving energy prices way up.

Morality is practicality in the long term. Can you give me a long term practical solution for Israel's continued existence in the middle east (especially considering the historical precedence of countries in that region lasting about 100 years on average)?

@Greg, the curse came when the Ottoman Empire fell. Israel's significance is religious and geopolitical (due to its proximity to the Suez Canal) in importance, hardly curse worthy.

The fallout of using nukes is the fallout worth talking about, not the actual radiation, not unless you know what you are talking about. I seriously doubt you do.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any idea how much fallout Israel's nukes would cause?

Actually, I do not.

You can help me understand though.

What do you make of this article? Is it accurate?

Background

The proliferation of nuclear technology in the politically volatile Middle East greatly increases the likelihood of a catastrophic nuclear war. It is widely accepted, while not openly declared, that Israel has nuclear weapons, and that Iran has enriched enough nuclear material to build them. The medical consequences of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel in the near future are envisioned, with a focus on the distribution of casualties in urban environments.

Iranian vulnerability is massive.

In consideration of the impact of nuclear attack within the much larger Iranian population of 69 million [4], the distinctive vulnerability of Iranian cities in general is illustrated by the capital, Tehran, with 12.6 million in the greater metropolitan area. The distinctive basin topology, reflective characteristics of the surrounding mountains, building construction, and densely packed population makes Tehran an environment strikingly conducive to very high mortality following a nuclear attack. In addition, 50% of Iran’s industry, 30% of the nation’s public sector workforce, and most of their higher education (50 colleges and universities) are clustered in this one city. Many of these characteristics are demonstrated in other Iranian cities, particularly the lack of urban sprawl that concentrates the population density, which greatly multiplies vulnerability to nuclear attack.

Effects of a nuclear detonation

The energy from a nuclear weapon is dissipated in four main ways: thermal radiation 30-50%; fallout radiation 5-10%; blast 40-60%; ionizing radiation 5%, depending upon the design of the weapon and the detonation environment.

Thermal energy (fluence) is typically measured in calories per square centimeter (cal/cm2). Larger weapon yields increase the intensity and range of thermal effects greatly [9]. Thermal energy travels directly from the fireball unless scattered or absorbed. At thermal fluencies above 10cals/cm2 large fires can start in urban areas [10] although there is much debate about the level needed for mass fires [11-13]. When detonations result in a fireball completely below cloud level, the thermal effect can double or in extreme circumstances it can quintuple [14]. Consequently the estimates of casualties in our scenarios could be very conservative. Clouds above the fireball produce multiple reflection paths resulting in more omni-directional thermal radiation, which produces fewer radiation “shadows” from buildings. This increases burn casualties and amplifies fire ignition probabilities. Even a few large clouds in the sky, supplemented by strong thermal winds and blast damage, could greatly increase the probability of local fires starting and subsequently spreading. Indeed, the intensity of fire damage can vary greatly, such as the lack of a firestorm in the second atomic bomb at Nagasaki owing to terrain features. It is a point in fact that incendiary bombing in the Second World War in Germany at Dresden and Hamburg actually created far greater fire damage in terms of percent fatalities in population at risk versus fire severity. This was due to the fact that incendiary bombs lengthen the time of exposure to the inflammatory material relative to the brief, high intensity flash as occurred in the atomic bomb explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Prompt, or ionizing radiation, occurs immediately after the detonation and fatal doses typically occur out to about 1,500 m for 15 Kt devices and about 2500 m for 500 Kt devices dropping off rapidly with increasing radii from the epicenter. These distances are within the mass fire zone for both of these detonations.

Fallout radiation causes a conical shaped plume that is blown downwind from ground zero. Dispersion is greatly affected by turbulence in the atmosphere which in turn mainly depends upon the topography, land use, vertical wind and temperature structure.

Blast effects cause extensive damage to buildings in cities. Blast produces shock waves which increase air pressure as they propagate from the blast center, causing buildings to collapse, and glass to shatter. High, blast associated winds can knock objects down, such as people or trees. Three to four pounds per square inch (psi) overpressure is usually enough to destroy most residential buildings and many people are either dead or injured from building collapse, being blown into objects, or hit by flying debris. Blast injury estimates vary greatly.

OTA [15] state that populations experiencing between 2psi to 5psi experience 45% of all injuries and 5% of all deaths, while 25% of the population from 1 psi to 2psi are injured, mainly by flying glass and debris. We take a conservative view of injuries due to blast alone, assuming 5-7% at 1-2psi, but overall injury rates must include overlapping blast, fire, burn, and, where appropriate, fallout and prompt radiation injuries. The 1, 2, and 3 psi levels are generally used designators for construction impact, while our use of 3.8, 4.9, 7.1, and 8.1 psi were based upon National Planning Scenario levels of 10 and 50% casualty and 10 and 50% fatality levels, respectively. Our overall injury rates are generally higher than the National Planning Scenarios estimates [16] due to our higher estimates for thermal and mass fires injuries. Table 2 illustrates the relationship between blast and thermal impacts for different sized weapons. For a 100 Kt weapon, the 3.8psi blast contour is close in radius to the Fires Highly Probable (29 cals/cm2) contour, meaning people are exposed to fire, burns and blast risks here. Additionally they may experience fallout radiation if they are in the downwind section and under the radiation plume. Further discussion of the range of casualties from 10 kt terrorist weapon in New York (Manhattan) can be seen from an analysis by Harney [17] in which traditional air burst and contrasts it with casualty effects from a surface burst. This provides a helpful information link for those interested in the rationale of the methods employed for casualty distribution calculation. It is interesting to note that the 10 kt surface burst casualty estimates in his Table three by Harney [17] for New York are much higher than the relative estimates in our typical Middle Eastern cities, indicating the method employed in this paper is not overestimating casualties relative to the available other published methodology in the literature.

Here is some math...

The fires possible level was taken from Eden. Her belief is that 10 cal/cm2 is a good first estimate of the range out to which a mass fire could be expected in a city attack such as with a Nagasaki/Hiroshima sized weapon [10]. This would correspond to around 15 cal/cm2 for a 500 Kt detonation after application of the relevant thermal fluence equation

Q=W*Catm*Scref*Tfrac*(1+φvr)e(−δrv)4πr2

Where

- Q is total thermal fluence in cal/cm2

- W = weapon yield in Kt

- r = straight-line slant distance to center of blast in meters

- v = visibility in Km

- φ = air scattering factor

- δ = clear air absorption factor

- Catm = Cloud attenuation factor

- Scref = Cloud-snow enhancement factor

- Tfrac = Thermal fraction.

Thermal fluence scales according to Q1/Q2 = (W1/W2)0.12 where W1 and W2 are the sizes of the two detonations in kilotons and Q1 and Q2 are the respective thermal fluencies [10].

Some very very cool "modeled detonations."

http://www.conflictandhealth.com/content/7/1/10

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Brant, how about you talk about it rather than doubting me?

@Selene, that sounds about right, but Iran is a large enough country that Israel can't nuke every city and it's pretty clear to me that if Israel nuked Iran the entire middle east would invade Israel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now you nuke guys are talking about big city-busting bombs as if this were the 1950s and Israel would obliterate an entire country killing tens upon tens of millions of people.

@Robin, the problem with talking to you is you really have no idea what you are talking about. About that I have no doubt, neither macro (war) nor micro (how fought)--neither strategic nor tactical, even yes or no.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is nice to know how vulnerable Tehran is and the crippling effect of hitting that target.

israel-f16.jpg

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/03/02/saudis-clear-airspace-for-israel-attack-on-iran-nuke/

As noted by the Washington Free Beacon on Feb. 25, 2015, Israel’s Channel Two News is reporting that the Saudis have very quietly given the Israelis permission to fly over Saudi. airspace in the event the Jerusalem government plans on wiping out Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. Citing a “knowledgeable” European official in Brussels as stating “The Saudi authorities are completely coordinated with Israel on all matters related to Iran.”

The peaceful Islamic Saudi's are nuking up...:

With the Shiites of Iran and Sunnis of Saudi Arabia literally blood enemies, the body count on both sides over the centuries make the South-Side of Chicago look more like Provo, Utah on a nondescript Wednesday night. To up the atomic ante, the Saudis have made clear that the closer the mullahs and ayatollahs in Tehran get to membership into the nuclear club, the diplomats from the House of Saud have already secured tactical nuclear weapons from The Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/03/02/saudis-clear-airspace-for-israel-attack-on-iran-nuke/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No mine shaft gaps!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new poll published today has some surprises (for me). I had thought support for/agreement with the Iran deal would be well below a majority and tending to tank in the USA. Not so, according to Public Policy Polling's release. The press release language sounds pretty close to advocacy or liberal talking points, but I haven't yet dug into the PPP bias or sleaze-factor ...

Subject: Americans Strongly In Favor of Iran Deal

Date: 7-27-15

A new Public Policy Polling survey finds that there’s strong support nationally for the Iran deal, that voters want their members of Congress to let it move forward, and that there’s no potential political backlash for members who do support the deal.

Key findings from the survey include:

-Only 38% of voters are opposed to the Iran deal, compared to 54% who are supportive of it. Democratic voters (75/17) are far more united in their favor for the agreement than Republicans (36/54) are in their opposition to it. Voters within every gender, race, and age group are in support of it, reflecting the broad based mandate for the deal.

-Similarly 54% of voters want their members of Congress to vote to allow the agreement to move forward, compared to just 39% who would like to see it blocked. There is very little public sentiment to let the deal fail and then see how things play out from there- voters want to see their elected officials move this along.

-There are basically no potential repercussions politically for members of Congress who do vote in support of the agreement. 60% of Americans say that if their members vote for it, they will be either more likely to vote for them in the future or it won’t make a difference either way in their future voting. Fully 79% of Democrats said they’d be more likely to support their members in the future or it wouldn’t make a difference. Just 36% of overall voters say they’ll be less likely down the line to vote for a member who supports the Iran agreement.


Another puzzling/revealing poll was published in The Los Angeles Jewish Journal. It suggests there is a stark divide between Israeli Jewish opinion and American Jewish opinion of the deal ...

American Jews want Congress to approve the Iran deal. That’s the headline from the first independent survey of America-Jewish opinion conducted in the days after the Iran nuclear deal was announced.

The L.A. Jewish Journal, an independent, nonprofit media company based in Los Angeles, sponsored the survey in order to provide a precise, thorough portrait of American-Jewish and national opinion at a time of intense concern and debate. Our hope is that the numbers and analyses presented below will provide a better understanding of how this crucial sector views the controversial deal between the United States, Russia, China, France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Iran.

As the analyses by professor Steven M. Cohen, who oversaw the survey, and our senior political editor, Shmuel Rosner, indicate, the findings have far-reaching implications and meanings for American Jewry, Israel and the United States.

They demonstrate a significant divide between the positions of major Jewish groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and many Jewish Federations, which have publicly opposed the deal, and the majority of American Jews. The thousands of American Jews publicly protesting congressional approval of the deal obscures the reality that most American Jews want Congress to approve it.

As Rosner points out, the results also depict a continuing divide between American-Jewish and Israeli-Jewish opinion. In terms of their expressed support for the deal, the two groups are almost mirror opposites of each other.


The results at LAJJ are presented in a striking graphic form, eg

SIDEBAR-GRAPHa.jpg

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes sense...

American Jews are overwhelmingly liberal Democrats.

And if Obama carried stone tablets they'd call him Moses! :laugh:

As far as everyone else... the majority of people living in the US want Iran to have nuclear weapons. If they didn't, they wouldn't support the fake agreement.

Did you know that inspections on military sites can only be done by first submitting a request, and then waiting while the decision to grant permission is being "deliberated"? This gives them PLENTY of time to hide anything they don't want to be seen.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Now you nuke guys are talking about big city-busting bombs as if this were the 1950s and Israel would obliterate an entire country killing tens upon tens of millions of people.

@Robin, the problem with talking to you is you really have no idea what you are talking about. About that I have no doubt, neither macro (war) nor micro (how fought)--neither strategic nor tactical, even yes or no.

--Brant

The problem with arguing with you is you give vague and nebulous negative statements about me without referring to any specific details.

I know about war, but I also know that it's highly unpredictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know about war, but I also know that it's highly unpredictable.

War is highly predictable...

Whenever the US military is forced to fight under the legal restraint of sissy liberal politically correct rules of engagement... it ALWAYS LOSES.

Vietnam and Iraq are two examples of this. The Iraqis are still fighting the Islamic State trying to regain territory that our military had already secured for them.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I predicted the end of the Vietnam War, almost exactly how and why it was going to happen, in 1971. Just not when. I was only wrong about the Mekong Delta, which held out the longest. It was in a short, unpublished book I had written (Capitalist Commentary). Not a very good book, btw.

It was easy--I also knew what was going to happen because of the political aftermath of the Tet offensive in 1968--and I knew while still over there in 1967 that no win meant lose Even back in early 1965 when I was told conventional troops were going in, I thought, oh, oh. This wasn't Korea where you could stop the fighting with a DMS, not with those borders. I couldn't believe they were going to throw away another 40 - 50,000 lives--that they had to have learned something. I was in jump training at Ft. Benning, soon to go to Ft. Bragg for Special Forces. I knew better than flunk out of my medical training and be sent to a conventional unit as a combat medic. Unfortunately, there was an heir to a Dodge fortune, Edward M. McIlvain III, in the class ahead of me who couldn't hack the training. He went to Vietnam as one and was killed riding in a jeep by an IED. That was October, 1966.

So I got to be a combatant combat medic and almost killed anyway.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chucky "the bottom feeder of the Senate" Schumer came out against the Iran Sellout Non-Treaty or ISN'T.

Already setting up the plausible deniability vote:

“There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way,” Mr. Schumer said. “While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/us/politics/schumer-says-he-will-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal.html?emc=edit_na_20150806&nlid=53564225&ref=cta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is what Madame Pelosi is trying to put together:

Mr. Schumer said his chief concern was that Iran would still be free after a decade to build a nuclear bomb. His announcement comes as Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, labors to build a firewall in the House in support of the deal, which has been denounced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. At six meetings in recent weeks, Ms. Pelosi has assembled an informal team of Democrats determined to win over the 146 House Democrats needed to uphold a veto.

Congressman Engel of NY pulled his semi bald head out of Schumer's ass long enough to announce that he was now opposed to the deal. Engel is Jewish by the way,,,OMG.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, what's behind all this is simple:

Obama hates Israel as much as he hates America, and he's determined to undermine them both with the help of his allies the Islamic fascists. What makes this even worse is that millions of people living in the US agree with what he's doing.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the bottom feeding slimy creature, who occupies the Senior Senate seat from NY State, who explained his cowardly decision to oppose out great President's brilliant accord with the lowest forms of human life on the planet - the Mullah's of Iran:

“This has made evaluating the agreement a difficult and deliberate endeavor, and after deep study, careful thought and considerable soul-searching, I have decided I must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”

This worm talks about "soul searching" forces me to demand that the Department of Justice issue a search warrant so that we can search for this creatures soul.

Here is Schumer's family portrait:

250px-Libr0409.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't you just love the way the media pre-paint these marxist non profits...

Within minutes of Sen. Chuck Schumer’s announcement Thursday night that he will oppose President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, progressive advocacy group MoveOn — which has been lobbying in support of the deal — urged its eight million members to withhold campaign contributions from Democratic candidates against the deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/07/moveon-aims-to-withhold-10m-in-contributions-from-dems-who-oppose-iran-deal/?wpisrc=nl_pmpol&wpmm=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now