Iran tested nuclear-capable cruise missile

[B. W.]

Thank you obama

Iran tested nuclear-capable cruise missile: German newspaper
-
-
-

[Philip]

If just one thing would be said to show the brain-dead, naivete of Obama and Kerry's foreign policy, it was the folly of the Iran deal. That dealing with thugs who have vowed to wipe a sovereign country off the map (Israel!) are the kind of people we can trust to honorably adhere to ANY agreement. Not to mention the money and removal of sanctions only helps these loonies spread terror and mayhem. Let's not forget, these are the very same lunatics who slaughtered their own children in the streets. That agreement, for the U.S., isn't worth the paper it's written on. But to the Iranians, it was solid gold. What idiots they undoubtedly see Obama and co as.

[edwardmurphy]

That dealing with thugs who have vowed to wipe a sovereign country off the map (Israel!)

Thanks, Phil. I was afraid I'd have to Google that one.

[Philip]

Why, Ed, is that a painful reminder beyond an obvious thing? Surely you can see the stupidity of the U.S. accommodating those Iranian maniacs?

[edwardmurphy]

What should we have done?

PS - "Make a better deal" isn't an answer.

[Hortator]

Make a better deal.

[edwardmurphy]

What, specifically, would a "better deal" look like?

[Philip]

What, specifically, would a "better deal" look like?

A better deal doesn't remove sanctions or free up vast millions into their coffers! These are very bad and dangerous people. Ya don't make deals with such people that strengthens their abilities to fund mayhem. Their national anthem might as well have "death to America" as a lyric.

[edwardmurphy]

Maybe. Or maybe an Iran with a better economy would feel like they had more to lose in a conflict with the West. Maybe a stable, prosperous, predictable Iran is to our benefit, now that Iraq and Syria are a mess and the Middle East is in chaos. Who knows.

In any case, they up and broke the deal with their silly behavior, so I guess it's a moot point.

[Philip]

Ed: Maybe. Or maybe an Iran with a better economy would feel like they had more to lose in a conflict with the West. Maybe a stable, prosperous, predictable Iran is to our benefit, now that Iraq and Syria are a mess and the Middle East is in chaos. Who knows.

MAYBE??? How could any country with Iran's track record be trusted? Do we take them at their word or not? If Iran is to become stable, peaceful and prosperous, it sure won't be with the theocrats mullahs who are willing to slaughter their own children in the streets! Do you know what the theological beliefs of the leadership are? They are intent upon domination - and not just the region. They hate the Saudis more than they do us. They are looking for fools for tools - and that is exactly how they took the Obama and co simpletons to the cleaners. NO conservative OR liberal should entertain the folly that these guys are trustworthy or aren't extremely dangerous. Ya just don't make it easier for such demented people by giving them vast sums of money and putting hope in some garbage diplomatic agreement. These people hate on a level we can't begin to imagine.

[edwardmurphy]

Who said anything about trust? The idea was to give Iran a chance to join the grown-up table to see if they could handle it. Seems they couldn't.

[Jac3510]

Who said anything about trust? The idea was to give Iran a chance to join the grown-up table to see if they could handle it. Seems they couldn't.

And everyone already knew that except you liberal buffoons. So instead you want to help boost the economy of a terrorist sponsoring organization. You literally want to aid and abet terrorists. I mean, hell, why not just apply that across the board in all cases? You catch a murderer? Don't put them in jail. Give them a million bucks and maybe they'll be so afraid of losing their new wealth that they'll clean up, right?

Idiotic. That's exactly what happened. And, sure enough, Iran did what they always, and we paid them to do it. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Literally and completely and exactly stupid. We ought not be talking to them at all unless and until they meet all sorts of preconditions. We can talk to them when they come to us with their tail tucked between their legs, and no, not because we're so much better (though we are), but because they are supporting terrorism. The "deal" we offer should be to take our boots off their necks when they start behaving. And as long as they don't, the "deal" should be to screw the bolts tighter and tighter and tighter and actively support movements within Iran that don't support terrorism. Yes, work with Russia, because while they're dangerous, they have the strongest influences on Iran (like China does on NK). If we're going to make a deal with the devil, let the devil to Moscow, not Tehran. But no . . . our last president was an idealistic and naive fool that got us into this mess. Stupid.

[edwardmurphy]

And everyone already knew that except you liberal buffoons.

Phil! Phil! He's doing it again! Phil!

[Jac3510]

What, call liberals buffoons? I think the stupid decisions that got made and are still defended demonstrate the buffoonery rather clearly. I'll stop calling out idiocy when people stop doing and defending idiotic things (like aiding and abetting and defending the aiding and abetting of terrorists).

[edwardmurphy]

Phil! Phil! He's unrepentant! Phil!