US lawmakers should realise the world wants peace

[sirineou]

They do not want to worry about the Iranians launching nuclear weapons at the USA. In case you forgot, the supreme leader of Iran leades his people in Death to America chants. Even the most ignorant and right wing of US politicians have never taken to the streets to lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

if the Iranian secret intelligence agency, overthrows the US government and replaces it with a puppet government that

prosecutes it's people , and then years later the US get's under the Iranian oppression,

Then I think the US politicians would lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

The Iranian people have good reason to be mad at as, and our current behavior is not doing a lot to change that.

If the Iranians need nuclear weapons, it is because the need to protect them selves from as.

We are the worlds worst nuclear proliferators , and the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapons!!!

Having lived through several years of this terrible repression of the Iranian people, I can only say...you don't have a clue.

The Iranian "people" don't hate the US. The Islamic Republic of Iran hates the US.

Go spend some time there, but avoid Qom and the Tehran bazaar areas. That's where the fundamentalists are.

I think you need to sharpen your reading skills, and tell me where in my reply I say that the Iranian people hate the US.

Talk about not having a clue

[Dap]

And the IS wants what?

[chuckd]

They do not want to worry about the Iranians launching nuclear weapons at the USA. In case you forgot, the supreme leader of Iran leades his people in Death to America chants. Even the most ignorant and right wing of US politicians have never taken to the streets to lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

if the Iranian secret intelligence agency, overthrows the US government and replaces it with a puppet government that

prosecutes it's people , and then years later the US get's under the Iranian oppression,

Then I think the US politicians would lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

The Iranian people have good reason to be mad at as, and our current behavior is not doing a lot to change that.

If the Iranians need nuclear weapons, it is because the need to protect them selves from as.

We are the worlds worst nuclear proliferators , and the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapons!!!

Having lived through several years of this terrible repression of the Iranian people, I can only say...you don't have a clue.

The Iranian "people" don't hate the US. The Islamic Republic of Iran hates the US.

Go spend some time there, but avoid Qom and the Tehran bazaar areas. That's where the fundamentalists are.

I think you need to sharpen your reading skills, and tell me where in my reply I say that the Iranian people hate the US.

Talk about not having a clue

I stand corrected. You did not say the Iranian people hated the US.

You claimed the Iranian people have good reason to be "mad" at us.

Precisely where are you coming up with the idea that the Iranian people are "mad" at us at all?

Are they merely stamping foot, panties in a twist mad or are they rioting in the streets as they were when I last visited the country?

[mankondang]

If Peace breakers out the USA will go broke.

The US track record in Asia is not the best.

Starting Japan 70 years ago, the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons (aginst women and children, and people still suffering today)..the spin,to end the war early and save llives (No, just pure revenge for Pearl Harbour);

Korea and Vietnam (inc napalm and agent orange against women and children and people still suffering today)... the spin, Reds under the beds.

Middle East (Not Asia). Dessert Storm...the spin, Arms of mass destruction. BS..proof shows none existed,( No, just pure revenge for 7/11)

Many other countries dragged in, and I and many good people lost young family and friends.

And money to be made from every spin. Repeate: If peace breaks out the USA will go broke. (But let's keep believing the spin.)

[sirineou]

if the Iranian secret intelligence agency, overthrows the US government and replaces it with a puppet government that

prosecutes it's people , and then years later the US get's under the Iranian oppression,

Then I think the US politicians would lead rallies with the chants of death to Iran.

The Iranian people have good reason to be mad at as, and our current behavior is not doing a lot to change that.

If the Iranians need nuclear weapons, it is because the need to protect them selves from as.

We are the worlds worst nuclear proliferators , and the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapons!!!

Having lived through several years of this terrible repression of the Iranian people, I can only say...you don't have a clue.

The Iranian "people" don't hate the US. The Islamic Republic of Iran hates the US.

Go spend some time there, but avoid Qom and the Tehran bazaar areas. That's where the fundamentalists are.

I think you need to sharpen your reading skills, and tell me where in my reply I say that the Iranian people hate the US.

Talk about not having a clue

I stand corrected. You did not say the Iranian people hated the US.

You claimed the Iranian people have good reason to be "mad" at us.

Precisely where are you coming up with the idea that the Iranian people are "mad" at us at all?

Are they merely stamping foot, panties in a twist mad or are they rioting in the streets as they were when I last visited the country?

You are right , they probably have no reason to be mad at us Savak was a walk in the park, the Shah was a sweet guy, the chemical weapons we supplied to Iraq only served to eliminate excess population that nobody missed, medical supplies shortages due to suctions? no a problem. Israeli bombing of nuclear reactor,probably a blessing in disguise, this things are dangerous and could explode any time why would they be mad at as at all..

At least the Iranian people have the good grace to separate the actions of a government and it's people , even though that government was elected by that people, where at least one american in this forum in this thread suggested that we turn Iran in to a glass parking lot.

[sirineou]

By the way the reply(#6) that suggested we turn Iran into a "glass parking lot" got eight likes, and we wonder why the Iranians might feel they need nuclear weapons

[simple1]

The only way to get peace with the likes of Iran is to turn it into a glass parking lot.

Cheers.

The above must be one of the most utterly crass posts on TV - God save America from it's 'patriots'.

[Scott]

The only way to get peace with the likes of Iran is to turn it into a glass parking lot.

Cheers.

The above must be one of the most utterly crass posts on TV - God save America from it's 'patriots'.

The comment is crass, but it is obviously sarcasm. Iran is a large country and such an endeavor is well beyond any country's capabilities.

[Scott]

Please re-read the OP and stay on topic. Post removed.

[Lissos]

Well I agree with others that this notion of the 'Angry Iranian' public, radicalised after British and American meddling in the past, is cartoonish.

Rather than pounced on, not one moment of hostility was encountered when travelling around the country some years back. Quite the opposite infact. Most (if not all) give the same feedback. Opinion was mixed depending on the age of people and region they lived in. On the whole, more saw the theocracy as archaic and rather like an overbearing grandfather. Lower down the heirachy, ahmedinejad (it was during his time) was seen by most as a total pain, someone unnecessarily causing problems with his rhetoric.

Some were thumbs up for ahmedinejad about domestic issues. Some who were more generally conservative in life style (but not anti western by any stretch) and pointed out certain policies of the ayatollahs which they saw as good for society (one that comes to mind was encouraging the institution of marriage by financially supporting young couples for accomodation, etc).

What stood out out with the later folks is that they were referring to domestic policy. All the shouty rhetoric against other nations was seen as counter productive. I remember watching television with some channels with ayatollahs giving lectures. It came across as so 'old', so dry / lifeless and hardly representing the aspirations of Iranians that were met there.

I saw only one thing that could fit the ,"Death to the Shaytan" image, a small demonstration on its way to the British Embassy, consisting of a handful of shouty goons. Had the BBC been there, they would have zoomed their cameras in tight to present a total illusion of 'a nation outraged'.

[shaurene]

The facts are. "IRAN have vowed to destroy Isreal with other Muslim COUNTRYS And China are in bed with IRAN, USA are in bed with Isreal so where could this lead to in the future.

If you read the book of Revelations there are many clues to the coming END through the Beast coming out of the water, The Beast refers to a country/country's and also religions. In the past they referred to the Beast as the Roman Church.

Facts: The Roman Church killed more people in the Equasision (spelling not sure sorry) than the 2 world wars together. The Vatican supplied the Germans with the chemicals that was used to gas the Jews. There is a fantastic book called "The Last Pope" some of it will blow your mind away.

Go onto YouTube look through UFO's there are some crap stuff but not all. There is this guy named Phil Schneider who was a top security cleared Biologist and Engineer for the USA MILITARY who blew the top of some secrecy in his presentations "Phil Schneider's Alien Agenda" he proved that there have been Aliens living on Earth for many years and the USA have well over 100 deep cave caverns all over USA that are housing a lot of them and their intention is to take over the world. I know lot of you will laugh but check it all out then decide your self.

Also NASA has found an Alien Ship in our Solar System that is 3,000 miles in diameter and another 26 miles long.

A lot of this blew my mind away. Get onto it with YouTube get a few beers and your boring nights will change.

[hawker9000]

Yes, the world wants peace, but doesn Iran?

Sure - as long as it gets its nukes AND the sanctions lifted.

N. Korea wants peace; as long as the world keeps paying the food ransom.

China wants peace; as long as it gets the S. and E. China Seas.

Putin wants peace; as long as he gets the Ukraine (and the Baltics, and ....)

IS wants peace; as long as it gets its global caliphate with Sharia everywhere.

Even drug cartels want peace; if LE and governments everywhere will just stop hassling them ...

What a silly OP.

[billd766]

Yes, the world wants peace, but doesn Iran?

being as you seem to be so concerned about it why don't you use this link and either telephone, email or make a visit to the Iranian Embassy and ask the Ambassador. His name is Mr Hossein Kamalian.

The Embassy contact details can be found at the website.

http://www.embassypages.com/missions/embassy15696/

I have made it easier for you here

• Iranian Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand

  215 Sukhumvit Road

  Sukhumvit Soi 49 (Soi Klang)

  Khlong Tan Nuea, Watthana

  Bangkok 10110

  Thailand

• TELEPHONE
• (+66) 2390 0871-3
• FAX
• (+66) 2390 0867
• EMAIL
• WEBSITE
• OFFICE HOURS
• 09.00 - 16.30
• HEAD OF MISSION
• Mr Hossein Kamalian, Ambassador

The embassy is by the small park next to the Emporium and the nearest BTS station is Phrom Phong.

[billd766]

The only way to get peace with the likes of Iran is to turn it into a glass parking lot.

Cheers.

I suppose that if you believe that killing over 79 million people is OK then go for it. Most of them are innocent civilians, men, women and children but don't let stand in your way.

Population of Iran (2015 and historical)

Year Population Yearly % Change

2015 79,476,308 1.31%

2014 78,470,222 1.32%

2010 74,462,314 1.20%

2005 70,152,384 1.26%

10 more rows, 10 more columns

www.worldometers.info/world-population/iran-population/

That would be the equivalent of 13 holocausts at one time, not to mention the radiation fallout killing many millions more in the region depending on which way the wind is blowing.

I am sure that Benjamin Netanyahu would back you every time and not worry about the consequences though I have a sneaky suspicion that it may not get the seal of approval from the US government.

I have read in a later post that Neversure was using sarcasm but having read many of his post I am not sure, hence my response.

Edited August 10, 2015 by billd766

[mango66]

Its very well known !!

US lawmakers are the war machining factory and Oil gas Mafia of our Globe;

Who not follows US rules, will be bombed and trampled down !!

Who ever used a nuclear bomb on our globe ?

who ??

and not only once !!

And they will use it ever again if they like !!

If they like, not if they would need !!

This country have no law right and no moral right to forbid any other country to have them !!

Hope one day another nation will show to US what they did in Hiroshima and h´Nagasaki !!

[mango66]

Yes, the world wants peace, but doesn Iran?

Cooperation between world powers and Iran hardly. Iran through its actions since the deal was signed has pretty well summed up how things will play out. Sanctions will be dropped, frozen billions will be returned, oil will be pumped(hurting the frackers in the process) no inspectors will be allowed on MILITARY sites as outlined last week and mentioned on TV then America and its allies(the ones still on board which will be almost none) will have to start the whole process over again. The Iranians in the past have proven they are liars and have no intention dealing with "infidels" The timing will be just right Obama will look like an emperor with no clothes and the Repubs. will take the white house. That's when all hell will really break loose. The poor will be flattened ordered to get a job within a year or starve, women will loose all rights over their bodies, the military will double in size. The Koch brothers will no doubt be a package deal as the next presidents personal advisers and that kind of states it all. The the evil twins will finally have the "America" they want labor unions will be like dinosaurs. The police state mentality now in its infancy will mature and blossom. "God Bless America" it will truly need it.

A shit on US !

They are the liers No 1 on our globe !

Where r the radioactive material from Irak ?ß where ??

They bomb down any nation , eny population which hinders them to grap all oil over the globe,

Who have ever drown 2 nuclear bombs on civil people ??

whoi have most civil people killed in the 2nd world war ? US bombings

who have killed most civil people in wars against Irak, Vietnam, Afghanistan ?

Its alwas the US which you will get as answer !!

where every day white police killing innocent - unweapened other skinned youngsters ??

what the president swared he will do in obe of his first action in presidency ? he will close guantamo !! what he did ??

He is one of the first liers in the world !

And if the next would be Bush 3, we will have wars and bombing again !!

When the worl will wake upo and give all this back in 1:1 to US ?

[mango66]

Most Iranians want peace and an open world !

US wants only power and $ars,

any way to get this is acceptable for them;

and this all over our globe -

and they start to claim same from the Universe !!

[chuckd]

Looks like somebody didn't take their medication.

[billd766]

Looks like somebody didn't take their medication.

Either that or his tinfoil hat is too tight.

[NickJ]

Wow...world peace that would be a first for mankind........

[arjunadawn]

This article is sheer nonsense. Lets consider a few points.

Obama and has gang have repeatedly insisted they would walk away from a bad deal. Obama and his gang have repeatedly insisted on the false narrative that the options are this deal or war. Therefore, something must not be true. If they could walk away from this deal then they equally would choose war as would the critics whom this false logic weapon is aimed at, or the alternative to the deal is not war.

The author notes (ostensibly to draw the impossible connection between Obama's fuzzy shadow and Kennedy' giant stature) that "President John F Kennedy gave a speech in 1963 on nuclear diplomacy" in exactly the same spot. How retarded the reach. Yet Obama has done what no sitting US President has ever done and equated those who oppose the "deal" as being the same as that which they oppose. One cannot undermine the motives of other statesman more than this. These statesman, rightly or wrongly, see Iran as a clear and present danger to the US and interests and Obama has maligned them as being the same as the threat. Besides being un-presidential, it seems desperate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFijMQzhis

Obama has pointed out the content of the deal is its merit yet its what is not in the deal that gives the greatest concern. On its face, the deal is bad. The deal is made more opaque when one realizes that to avoid public circumspection the US enabled a supranational mechanism beyond public accountability which would be binding on the US yet the US has no means to evaluate the side deals nor its linkage to the public deal. This is called treachery at worst, deceit at best.

How is the critiquing of a deal on its merits "shameful" for "unfairly attacking the agreement?" It is here the author reveals his hand is not just incompetence but agenda. Whenever one reads pejorative and innuendo into motives and character invariably there is manipulation and lying going on. This author is now clearly suspect. By what mechanism is "unfairly" advanced? This is sophomoric oped for certain.

The US lawmakers should only ever be accountable to their constituencies. Again, the author betrays either his lack of knowledge or willful abandonment of reason and objectivity. The remainder of the world spoke, ok. This is America's voice, not "we are the world." Lastly, the juxtaposing Hezbollah travesties as if so doing presents a balanced presentation is childish. It does not achieve this. It is a non sequitur and is left hanging out there, undeveloped. However, arming Iran with countless billions of dollars would certainly see an increase in Hezbollah coffers; few dispute this. Yet the author leaves this point untended.

All in all this is another piece of rubbish. It is not well presented. Had the facts been made, supported, and the conclusion remotely tuned to the ridiculous 1960s Lefty Byline "the world wants peace" I may have at least remained neutral. "The world wants peace?" Ha, show me one example where this is an accepted state policy of Iran.

[Publicus]

Interesting book review of a news article.

Good video btw.

[mankondang]

This article is sheer nonsense. Lets consider a few points.

Obama and has gang have repeatedly insisted they would walk away from a bad deal. Obama and his gang have repeatedly insisted on the false narrative that the options are this deal or war. Therefore, something must not be true. If they could walk away from this deal then they equally would choose war as would the critics whom this false logic weapon is aimed at, or the alternative to the deal is not war.

The author notes (ostensibly to draw the impossible connection between Obama's fuzzy shadow and Kennedy' giant stature) that "President John F Kennedy gave a speech in 1963 on nuclear diplomacy" in exactly the same spot. How retarded the reach. Yet Obama has done what no sitting US President has ever done and equated those who oppose the "deal" as being the same as that which they oppose. One cannot undermine the motives of other statesman more than this. These statesman, rightly or wrongly, see Iran as a clear and present danger to the US and interests and Obama has maligned them as being the same as the threat. Besides being un-presidential, it seems desperate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFijMQzhis

Obama has pointed out the content of the deal is its merit yet its what is not in the deal that gives the greatest concern. On its face, the deal is bad. The deal is made more opaque when one realizes that to avoid public circumspection the US enabled a supranational mechanism beyond public accountability which would be binding on the US yet the US has no means to evaluate the side deals nor its linkage to the public deal. This is called treachery at worst, deceit at best.

How is the critiquing of a deal on its merits "shameful" for "unfairly attacking the agreement?" It is here the author reveals his hand is not just incompetence but agenda. Whenever one reads pejorative and innuendo into motives and character invariably there is manipulation and lying going on. This author is now clearly suspect. By what mechanism is "unfairly" advanced? This is sophomoric oped for certain.

The US lawmakers should only ever be accountable to their constituencies. Again, the author betrays either his lack of knowledge or willful abandonment of reason and objectivity. The remainder of the world spoke, ok. This is America's voice, not "we are the world." Lastly, the juxtaposing Hezbollah travesties as if so doing presents a balanced presentation is childish. It does not achieve this. It is a non sequitur and is left hanging out there, undeveloped. However, arming Iran with countless billions of dollars would certainly see an increase in Hezbollah coffers; few dispute this. Yet the author leaves this point untended.

All in all this is another piece of rubbish. It is not well presented. Had the facts been made, supported, and the conclusion remotely tuned to the ridiculous 1960s Lefty Byline "the world wants peace" I may have at least remained neutral. "The world wants peace?" Ha, show me one example where this is an accepted state policy of Iran.

In your attempt to impress TV members with your syntactically lacking, thesis length reply to the OP, you have, by design or accident, overlooked the simple fact that in the phrase "The World wants peace", that the World is much greater than just Iran. (You may find to your dismay, that the World is also certainly greater than the U.S.A). Wish you health and happiness.

[dexterm]

This article is sheer nonsense. Lets consider a few points.

Obama and has gang have repeatedly insisted they would walk away from a bad deal. Obama and his gang have repeatedly insisted on the false narrative that the options are this deal or war. Therefore, something must not be true. If they could walk away from this deal then they equally would choose war as would the critics whom this false logic weapon is aimed at, or the alternative to the deal is not war.

The author notes (ostensibly to draw the impossible connection between Obama's fuzzy shadow and Kennedy' giant stature) that "President John F Kennedy gave a speech in 1963 on nuclear diplomacy" in exactly the same spot. How retarded the reach. Yet Obama has done what no sitting US President has ever done and equated those who oppose the "deal" as being the same as that which they oppose. One cannot undermine the motives of other statesman more than this. These statesman, rightly or wrongly, see Iran as a clear and present danger to the US and interests and Obama has maligned them as being the same as the threat. Besides being un-presidential, it seems desperate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFijMQzhis

Obama has pointed out the content of the deal is its merit yet its what is not in the deal that gives the greatest concern. On its face, the deal is bad. The deal is made more opaque when one realizes that to avoid public circumspection the US enabled a supranational mechanism beyond public accountability which would be binding on the US yet the US has no means to evaluate the side deals nor its linkage to the public deal. This is called treachery at worst, deceit at best.

How is the critiquing of a deal on its merits "shameful" for "unfairly attacking the agreement?" It is here the author reveals his hand is not just incompetence but agenda. Whenever one reads pejorative and innuendo into motives and character invariably there is manipulation and lying going on. This author is now clearly suspect. By what mechanism is "unfairly" advanced? This is sophomoric oped for certain.

The US lawmakers should only ever be accountable to their constituencies. Again, the author betrays either his lack of knowledge or willful abandonment of reason and objectivity. The remainder of the world spoke, ok. This is America's voice, not "we are the world." Lastly, the juxtaposing Hezbollah travesties as if so doing presents a balanced presentation is childish. It does not achieve this. It is a non sequitur and is left hanging out there, undeveloped. However, arming Iran with countless billions of dollars would certainly see an increase in Hezbollah coffers; few dispute this. Yet the author leaves this point untended.

All in all this is another piece of rubbish. It is not well presented. Had the facts been made, supported, and the conclusion remotely tuned to the ridiculous 1960s Lefty Byline "the world wants peace" I may have at least remained neutral. "The world wants peace?" Ha, show me one example where this is an accepted state policy of Iran.

Yours is the false logic..

Obama and has gang have repeatedly insisted they would walk away from a bad deal. Obama and his gang have repeatedly insisted on the false narrative that the options are this deal or war. Therefore, something must not be true.

They didn't walk away from a bad deal, because it is a good deal.

Ha, show me one example where this is an accepted state policy of Iran.

Iran signed the deal = peace.

[VIPinthailand]

guns builders don't want peace they make money with wars.... get real. there will be never peace on earth as long money and power exist.

God bless America!

Edited August 12, 2015 by VIPinthailand

[hawker9000]

This article is sheer nonsense. Lets consider a few points.

Obama and has gang have repeatedly insisted they would walk away from a bad deal. Obama and his gang have repeatedly insisted on the false narrative that the options are this deal or war. Therefore, something must not be true. If they could walk away from this deal then they equally would choose war as would the critics whom this false logic weapon is aimed at, or the alternative to the deal is not war.

The author notes (ostensibly to draw the impossible connection between Obama's fuzzy shadow and Kennedy' giant stature) that "President John F Kennedy gave a speech in 1963 on nuclear diplomacy" in exactly the same spot. How retarded the reach. Yet Obama has done what no sitting US President has ever done and equated those who oppose the "deal" as being the same as that which they oppose. One cannot undermine the motives of other statesman more than this. These statesman, rightly or wrongly, see Iran as a clear and present danger to the US and interests and Obama has maligned them as being the same as the threat. Besides being un-presidential, it seems desperate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YeFijMQzhis

Obama has pointed out the content of the deal is its merit yet its what is not in the deal that gives the greatest concern. On its face, the deal is bad. The deal is made more opaque when one realizes that to avoid public circumspection the US enabled a supranational mechanism beyond public accountability which would be binding on the US yet the US has no means to evaluate the side deals nor its linkage to the public deal. This is called treachery at worst, deceit at best.

How is the critiquing of a deal on its merits "shameful" for "unfairly attacking the agreement?" It is here the author reveals his hand is not just incompetence but agenda. Whenever one reads pejorative and innuendo into motives and character invariably there is manipulation and lying going on. This author is now clearly suspect. By what mechanism is "unfairly" advanced? This is sophomoric oped for certain.

The US lawmakers should only ever be accountable to their constituencies. Again, the author betrays either his lack of knowledge or willful abandonment of reason and objectivity. The remainder of the world spoke, ok. This is America's voice, not "we are the world." Lastly, the juxtaposing Hezbollah travesties as if so doing presents a balanced presentation is childish. It does not achieve this. It is a non sequitur and is left hanging out there, undeveloped. However, arming Iran with countless billions of dollars would certainly see an increase in Hezbollah coffers; few dispute this. Yet the author leaves this point untended.

All in all this is another piece of rubbish. It is not well presented. Had the facts been made, supported, and the conclusion remotely tuned to the ridiculous 1960s Lefty Byline "the world wants peace" I may have at least remained neutral. "The world wants peace?" Ha, show me one example where this is an accepted state policy of Iran.

Yours is the false logic..

Obama and has gang have repeatedly insisted they would walk away from a bad deal. Obama and his gang have repeatedly insisted on the false narrative that the options are this deal or war. Therefore, something must not be true.

They didn't walk away from a bad deal, because it is a good deal.

Ha, show me one example where this is an accepted state policy of Iran.

Iran signed the deal = peace.

Iran signed the deal = peace. nukes (for Iran) + lifting of sanctions (for Iran) + postponed conflict (for Obama) + snake oil (for those really interested in peace)

[shirtless]

No money in peace and corrupt governments love money, war will stay

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full,..

Hawker9000 wrote..

Iran signed the deal = peace. nukes (for Iran) + lifting of sanctions (for Iran) + postponed conflict (for Obama) + snake oil (for those really interested in peace)

1.Show me the nukes!

2.A prosperous Iran = peaceful Iran

3.Postponed conflict?...straw man fallacy....you're tilting at windmills.

4.Snake oil?..I suggest there's plenty of that oozing from the anti deal lobbyists at the moment.

[lvr181]

Yes, the world wants peace, but doesn Iran?

Cooperation between world powers and Iran hardly. Iran through its actions since the deal was signed has pretty well summed up how things will play out. Sanctions will be dropped, frozen billions will be returned, oil will be pumped(hurting the frackers in the process) no inspectors will be allowed on MILITARY sites as outlined last week and mentioned on TV then America and its allies(the ones still on board which will be almost none) will have to start the whole process over again. The Iranians in the past have proven they are liars and have no intention dealing with "infidels" The timing will be just right Obama will look like an emperor with no clothes and the Repubs. will take the white house. That's when all hell will really break loose. The poor will be flattened ordered to get a job within a year or starve, women will loose all rights over their bodies, the military will double in size. The Koch brothers will no doubt be a package deal as the next presidents personal advisers and that kind of states it all. The the evil twins will finally have the "America" they want labor unions will be like dinosaurs. The police state mentality now in its infancy will mature and blossom. "God Bless America" it will truly need it.

A shit on US !

They are the liers No 1 on our globe !

Where r the radioactive material from Irak ?ß where ??

They bomb down any nation , eny population which hinders them to grap all oil over the globe,

Who have ever drown 2 nuclear bombs on civil people ??

whoi have most civil people killed in the 2nd world war ? US bombings

who have killed most civil people in wars against Irak, Vietnam, Afghanistan ?

Its alwas the US which you will get as answer !!

where every day white police killing innocent - unweapened other skinned youngsters ??

what the president swared he will do in obe of his first action in presidency ? he will close guantamo !! what he did ??

He is one of the first liers in the world !

And if the next would be Bush 3, we will have wars and bombing again !!

When the worl will wake upo and give all this back in 1:1 to US ?

Wow Mango Bob (or are you Neville Chamberlain re-incarnated?)!

May I be allowed to ask you a question: Who started and who joined with Hitler during WW2?

As devastating as the A-bombs were, 1000s of more lives could have been lost if the warfare was carried through to Japan in the conventional way. And the Japanese did have the option to surrender after the first A-bomb was dropped!

And the "wars" in Iraq, Vietnam and Afghanistan were started by who?

[arjunadawn]

In your attempt to impress TV members with your syntactically lacking, thesis length reply to the OP, you have, by design or accident, overlooked the simple fact that in the phrase "The World wants peace", that the World is much greater than just Iran. (You may find to your dismay, that the World is also certainly greater than the U.S.A). Wish you health and happiness.

Why would you ape my text to indict it? In any event, The article does not support the byline. The Byline and the article in whole is an emotional appeal and childish indictment. It is possible the argument the OP asserts is true; possible, but this garbage does not conclude anything. It is rubbish.

I return your post above commenting on my post previously- how can one really attack another for syntax or substance with a leading sentence like that? It is hilarious. Good luck with the rage.