All that Iranian cash

[Grandpa mac]

i know how much y’all hated returning Iran’s money in exchange for them shelving their nuke program (at least for a decade). But now they have the money and thanks to Trump unilaterally withdrawing, they are gonna go ahead and restart their nuke program unless the EU makes new concessions. What point was served in tearing up the deal after Iran got what it wanted?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/08/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-intl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

 

[RVR SWPR]

 

[wallnutz]

i know how much y’all hated returning Iran’s money in exchange for them shelving their nuke program (at least for a decade). But now they have the money and thanks to Trump unilaterally withdrawing, they are gonna go ahead and restart their nuke program unless the EU makes new concessions. What point was served in tearing up the deal after Iran got what it wanted?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/08/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-intl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

So you think it is good policy to make deals with terrorist states. Noted

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

i know how much y’all hated returning Iran’s money in exchange for them shelving their nuke program (at least for a decade). But now they have the money and thanks to Trump unilaterally withdrawing, they are gonna go ahead and restart their nuke program unless the EU makes new concessions. What point was served in tearing up the deal after Iran got what it wanted?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/08/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-intl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

If you need to ask, you clearly fall into the Neville Chamberlain camp.

Signed...Ronaldus Maximus.

 

[RVR SWPR]

RASMUSSEN:WEDNESDAY 5/8/19
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job Performance and his Agenda.

 

[SixD9R]

Don’t look now liberal tards, but the mullahs withdrew from the worthless fucken deal the day obozo and company signed it. They only just now made it official. Besides, if it was such a great deal then we should not have had to secretly pay them back.
Hey libs if you liked your deal with terrorists so much maybe I can interest you in an amazing offer on some Martian real estate?

 

[Grandpa mac]

So you think it is good policy to make deals with terrorist states. Noted

Like North Korea? Noted.

 

[Sandlord]

Here is a thought.
You hate Trump

You want Trump to fail.
You think all Trumps decisions are bad.
Then, why not support his decisions and let him fail.

 

[Grandpa mac]

If you need to ask, you clearly fall into the Neville Chamberlain camp.

Signed...Ronaldus Maximus.

We had a deal that kept Iran from getting a nuke for at least a decade and might have given them reason to continue building on the financial success of renewed economic ties to the rest of the world. Trump tore that up exclusively to dismantle Obama’s legacy and greatly increased the odds of Iran getting a nuke in the near future.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Here is a thought.
You hate Trump

You want Trump to fail.
You think all Trumps decisions are bad.
Then, why not support his decisions and let him fail.

Because his failures hurt America and the future of people I love.

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

We had a deal that kept Iran from getting a nuke for at least a decade and might have given them reason to continue building on the financial success of renewed economic ties to the rest of the world. Trump tore that up exclusively to dismantle Obama’s legacy and greatly increased the odds of Iran getting a nuke in the near future.

If you look at it through the prism of a pacifist, correct. But when you put a disabling military strike on the table, it ends the threat, there and now and it also, in all likelihood, ends the NK threat as well, just as it did in Libya with Gaddafi.

I would agree a negotiated deal is preferable over a military option. However the Iranian Mullahs won't do that.

If you honestly think they stopped their program, you're far more naive that I would have figured. No inspectors??? really?

 

[530RL]

If you look at it through the prism of a pacifist, correct. But when you put a disabling military strike on the table, it ends the threat, there and now and it also, in all likelihood, ends the NK threat as well, just as it did in Libya with Gaddafi.

I would agree a negotiated deal is preferable over a military option. However the Iranian Mullahs won't do that.

If you honestly think they stopped their program, you're far more naive that I would have figured. No inspectors??? really?

Could you please describe your definition of a "disabling military strike" against Iran?

Iran is a country of 82 million people. It has a military budget just slightly less than Israel. It has over 23 million males ages 18 - 29 versus Israel that has 1.8 million. Iran has over 550,000 active military forces and another 650,000 in reserve.

Given America has been working on disabling the Taliban in Afghanistan for over 15 years, and remains in Iraq since 2003, both adversaries which are a small fraction of the size, population and military capacity of Iran, exactly what is your military plan and if it would work, why not use it in Afghanistan or in Iraq?

 

[boatdoc55]

Because his failures hurt America and the future of people I love.

Go FUCK yourself you PUKE!!!

 

[Skinny Tire AH]

Could you please describe your definition of a "disabling military strike" against Iran?

Iran is a country of 82 million people. It has a military budget just slightly less than Israel. It has over 23 million males ages 18 - 29 versus Israel that has 1.8 million. Iran has over 550,000 active military forces and another 650,000 in reserve.

Given America has been working on disabling the Taliban in Afghanistan for over 15 years, and remains in Iraq since 2003, both adversaries which are a small fraction of the size, population and military capacity of Iran, exactly what is your military plan and if it would work, why not use it in Afghanistan or in Iraq?

OK, to be exact. A "pinpoint" strike with the ordinance required to disable their nuke program. Which the other mentioned countries didn't have. Look, Dan, I don't want or desire a conflict with Iran. The only thing more disturbing would be dealing with a Nuclear armed Iran. and that is my point. Fight them now or fight them once they achieve their goal.

As bad of actors as they are now, imagine them with short to mid-range nuke missiles.

Would you agree that when Obama/Kerry took the military option off the table, you lose all gravitas in a negotiation?

 

[530RL]

OK, to be exact. A "pinpoint" strike with the ordinance required to disable their nuke program. Which the other mentioned countries didn't have. Look, Dan, I don't want or desire a conflict with Iran. The only thing more disturbing would be dealing with a Nuclear armed Iran. and that is my point. Fight them now or fight them once they achieve their goal.

As bad of actors as they are now, imagine them with short to mid-range nuke missiles.

Would you agree that when Obama/Kerry took the military option off the table, you lose all gravitas in a negotiation?

I disagree they took the military option "off the table". I would agree that they were less likely to negotiate with hyperbole and bravado, but I would love to see where they said a military option was "off the table". There are however multiple quotes where they stated they would like a negotiated settlement, which you and other Trump supporters may take and view as weak. But I have always found hyperbolic threats, laughable and when repeatedly used, no longer credible.

The realistic fact is that America can not keep everyone else from getting nuclear weapons over time. We did not keep N. Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and a host of others from getting them nor can we pinpoint strike our way to this goal as those countries we strike will naturally retaliate any way they can and continue to work on their programs just as you and I would do if we were an Iranian, N. Korean or leader of any other country with a significant population and risks.

So it becomes a policy question of how the existing nuclear powers work together to a) slow it down and b) manage it. My personal view is that history has shown that you can trade or invade. And history has shown greater peace amongst those who are interdependent upon each other.

However I understand the current administration and their supporters think America can just tell everyone what they can and can not do, and what they can and can not have and they will all bow down. I get that some people think we are "Merica" and are the big bad ass who is going to tell everyone else do it our way or fuck you. So did the Greeks, the Romans, the British, the Germans, the Japanese and so on.

History always repeats itself.

Edit: Why would any country keep their nuclear program in one spot? Wouldn't you need dozens of pinpoint strikes to "disable" it?

 

[Hullbilly]

Turdeeeee for pres in 2020 time to put rubber to the road m, slackjaw and show America how bright and brave you really are.

 

[RVR SWPR]

MEANWHILE:
President Donald Trump asserted executive privilege on the unredacted version of the Mueller report on Wednesday morning.

 

[wallnutz]

Like North Korea? Noted.

Which deal is that, the one Obama and his SoS made to pay them not to build nukes?

 

[Old Texan]

I disagree they took the military option "off the table". I would agree that they were less likely to negotiate with hyperbole and bravado, but I would love to see where they said a military option was "off the table". There are however multiple quotes where they stated they would like a negotiated settlement, which you and other Trump supporters may take and view as weak. But I have always found hyperbolic threats, laughable and when repeatedly used, no longer credible.

The realistic fact is that America can not keep everyone else from getting nuclear weapons over time. We did not keep N. Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and a host of others from getting them nor can we pinpoint strike our way to this goal as those countries we strike will naturally retaliate any way they can and continue to work on their programs just as you and I would do if we were an Iranian, N. Korean or leader of any other country with a significant population and risks.

So it becomes a policy question of how the existing nuclear powers work together to a) slow it down and b) manage it. My personal view is that history has shown that you can trade or invade. And history has shown greater peace amongst those who are interdependent upon each other.

However I understand the current administration and their supporters think America can just tell everyone what they can and can not do, and what they can and can not have and they will all bow down. I get that some people think we are "Merica" and are the big bad ass who is going to tell everyone else do it our way or fuck you. So did the Greeks, the Romans, the British, the Germans, the Japanese and so on.

History always repeats itself.

Edit: Why would any country keep their nuclear program in one spot? Wouldn't you need dozens of pinpoint strikes to "disable" it?

You're all over the board. Negotiations are fine if you can somewhat trust who you're negotiating with and few in the ME can be trusted. Saudi is the closest and it's all based on their need for our money. O and Kerry weren't smart enough to negotiate such a major deal and the Iranians snickered and lied. They've never stopped building technology towards a nuke collection.

Best way to "fight" Iran is to back those who want the mullahs the fuck out. O blew that when he turned a blind eye to their near revolt. But then again, we don't need to get ourselves wrapped up in another taking sides deal. Another O regime fuck up that created more terrorists and broken governments in the ME due to the ineptitude of O and his to idiot SoS's

We have seen nuclear cutbacks talked about, but it's back to a matter of trusting the smaller arsenals in nations with terrorist factions. Israel isn't taking them out of their arsenal if their mortal enemies still have them and at minimum the technology to throw them together. Bottom line on nukes is, the gate can be closed but the horses are out in the wind and no one can be certain how many exist. So no one is foolish enough to not keep their own handy.

You can bad mouth the little folks "Merica" as you snidely call it. But we aren't being bullies to the rest of the world, more of a parent is a better analogy. The bulk of the horror in these other nations is brought on by corrupt governments. Something the liberal progressive left wants to bring to our nation. Try addressing that thought. Trump ain't the enemy, it's that damned DC Establishment you refuse to recognize exists. The one that butters your bread......

 

[530RL]

But we aren't being bullies to the rest of the world, more of a parent is a better analogy

That's what the Sanctimonious always think.......

 

[TeamGreene]

That's what the Sanctimonious always think.......

Wow pot/kettle much?
The only thing missing in the definition below is pretzel making.

sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
/ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/
adjective
DEROGATORY

1. making a show of being morally superior to other people.
   "what happened to all the sanctimonious talk about putting his family first?"
   synonyms: self-righteous, holier-than-thou, churchy, pious, pietistic, moralizing, unctuous, smug, superior, priggish, mealy-mouthed, hypocritical, insincere, for form's sake, to keep up appearances;

 

[Hullbilly]

That's what the Sanctimonious always think.......

Canada is calling

 

[Kfabe]

The Iranians bent Obama over and ravaged that booty hole. Worst “deal” in the history of deals. You (Obama) give us a shit ton of money and then take our word (Iranians) for it that we are not doing anything wrong. Come on man. I’m guessing that they took the money and put it directly into the nuclear program or they purchased a bunch of rockets to fire into Israel. Hey while your at it I heard ISIS, al qaeda and hezbollah are looking to make deals as well. Just like the Iranians they seem to be a trustworthy people.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Could you please describe your definition of a "disabling military strike" against Iran?

Iran is a country of 82 million people. It has a military budget just slightly less than Israel. It has over 23 million males ages 18 - 29 versus Israel that has 1.8 million. Iran has over 550,000 active military forces and another 650,000 in reserve.

Given America has been working on disabling the Taliban in Afghanistan for over 15 years, and remains in Iraq since 2003, both adversaries which are a small fraction of the size, population and military capacity of Iran, exactly what is your military plan and if it would work, why not use it in Afghanistan or in Iraq?[/ewred QUOTE]
And North Korea is even worse since any military option there virtually guarantees a few hundred thousand (including American servicemen and their families) in Seoul. We can’t risk war in either location but the new Republican Party doesn’t seem to value diplomacy or State Department at all. Trump played nice with North Korea just long enough for a photo op , but now that Kim has reverted to form, I assume more threats against Rocket Man are on the horizon. Stick to crippling sanctions until behaviors start to change and then ease up. It’s the best we have and it’s what Obama tried in Iran.

 

[Grandpa mac]

Go FUCK yourself you PUKE!!!

Get help. You’re not well.

 

[Grandpa mac]

I disagree they took the military option "off the table". I would agree that they were less likely to negotiate with hyperbole and bravado, but I would love to see where they said a military option was "off the table". There are however multiple quotes where they stated they would like a negotiated settlement, which you and other Trump supporters may take and view as weak. But I have always found hyperbolic threats, laughable and when repeatedly used, no longer credible.

The realistic fact is that America can not keep everyone else from getting nuclear weapons over time. We did not keep N. Korea, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and a host of others from getting them nor can we pinpoint strike our way to this goal as those countries we strike will naturally retaliate any way they can and continue to work on their programs just as you and I would do if we were an Iranian, N. Korean or leader of any other country with a significant population and risks.

So it becomes a policy question of how the existing nuclear powers work together to a) slow it down and b) manage it. My personal view is that history has shown that you can trade or invade. And history has shown greater peace amongst those who are interdependent upon each other.

However I understand the current administration and their supporters think America can just tell everyone what they can and can not do, and what they can and can not have and they will all bow down. I get that some people think we are "Merica" and are the big bad ass who is going to tell everyone else do it our way or fuck you. So did the Greeks, the Romans, the British, the Germans, the Japanese and so on.

History always repeats itself.

Edit: Why would any country keep their nuclear program in one spot? Wouldn't you need dozens of pinpoint strikes to "disable" it?

Excellent post as usual.

 

[500bbc]

It was not the Mullahs money, they pulled a coup, invading sovereign US soil when doing so, an act the Japs and Nazi's didn't even stoop to.
February 22, 2018


February 22, 2018
No, the $1.7 billion Obama forked over to Iran wasn't 'its own money'
By Monica Showalter
When President Obama's official portrait by Kehinde Wiley came out, its easily manipulated vector graphics made it an easy target for parodies and satires. The funniest one, passed around from viewer to viewer, on Facebook, was by an unknown satirist here.

It's funny because it says something so true about President Obama and his much vaunted Iran deal with the mullahs, which is the single foreign policy element of his legacy he and his minions defend hardest. The mullahs rolled in cash as a result of rolling Obama and his gullible team over the deal, knowing that Obama was desperate for some sort of legacy. They shook $1.7 billion out of him, based on $400 million in funds the old shah of Iran had deposited in the U.S. for military purchases. After that, they made off like bandits with the loot.

Hundreds of millions of dollars rolled in on pallets on secret flights to the mullahs, in addition to cash released from other sources. From there, it was spent on financing terrorism and insurrection in places such as Yemen, as well as in the Syrian conflict and beyond. As Iran fell into disrepair, its people choked by the effects of global sanctions, the mullahs lived it up, got rich, and then used that cash to spread trouble.

It's an ugly picture, and since then, the Obamatons have attempted to spread a myth to draw attention away from their rotten deal: that the cash from America was really Iran's cash all along, and the mullahs were just getting what was owed to them.

It's horse hockey. The estimable Lee Smith, writing in Tablet magazine, exposes how that $1.7 billion was anything but the rightful property of the mullahs.

First, when Iran submitted its claim in 1981, the US filed an $817 million counterclaim for Iran's violations of its obligations under the FMS program. As Rick Richman explained in a 2016 Mosaic article, "with both the claim and the counterclaim still pending, it was possible that Iran owed billions of dollars to the U.S., not the reverse."

Second, a 2000 law signed by President Bill Clinton, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, said that Iran's FMS account could not be refunded until court judgments held by the U.S. government against Iran for damages from terrorist acts against American citizens were resolved to America's satisfaction.

So, it turns out, the mullahs had had many judgments against them for inflicting terrorism on Americans, and some of them sued. Courts ruled for them, and the cash should have been paid from the original $400 million. It wasn't, but the judgments stood, and in the past, this has been the big obstacle for Iran to get its money back. Second, it wasn't its money anyway, given that Iran under the mullahs had violated the terms of the parked cash anyway.

And now the Obamatons defend their bad deal with Iran by saying it was all Iran's money anyway? Never mind the dead terrorist victims over the years. Give 'em nothing?

Someone seems to have a guilty conscience.

With Smith's reporting, another Obama myth is busted.

When President Obama's official portrait by Kehinde Wiley came out, its easily manipulated vector graphics made it an easy target for parodies and satires. The funniest one, passed around from viewer to viewer, on Facebook, was by an unknown satirist here.

Or here:


It's funny because it says something so true about President Obama and his much vaunted Iran deal with the mullahs, which is the single foreign policy element of his legacy he and his minions defend hardest. The mullahs rolled in cash as a result of rolling Obama and his gullible team over the deal, knowing that Obama was desperate for some sort of legacy. They shook $1.7 billion out of him, based on $400 million in funds the old shah of Iran had deposited in the U.S. for military purchases. After that, they made off like bandits with the loot.

Hundreds of millions of dollars rolled in on pallets on secret flights to the mullahs, in addition to cash released from other sources. From there, it was spent on financing terrorism and insurrection in places such as Yemen, as well as in the Syrian conflict and beyond. As Iran fell into disrepair, its people choked by the effects of global sanctions, the mullahs lived it up, got rich, and then used that cash to spread trouble.



Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/blo...o_iran_wasnt_its_own_money.html#ixzz5nNgmx7KR
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


You filthy scout molesting shit eating cumguzzling piece of sub human shit.


Fuck

You

 

[lbhsbz]

Like North Korea? Noted.

And what terrorist act has N.K. Been responsible for on US soil?


Fucktard

 

[RVR SWPR]

 

[spectra3279]

And what terrorist act has N.K. Been responsible for on US soil?


Fucktard

Mail order brides, maybe.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

 

[was thatguy]

Mail order brides, maybe.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Tapatalk

The Russians excell at that market.

 

[Racey]

Go home to mommy.

 

[boatdoc55]

Get help. You’re not well.

The pot calling the kettle black!! You crack me up!!


BTW- Go FUCK yoreself, leave those boy scouts alone!!

 

[boatdoc55]

Excellent post as usual.

You sure yore not Shameus and 5291/2 isn't some guy called Saucy???? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

 

[was thatguy]

You sure yore not Shameus and 5291/2 isn't some guy called Saucy???? Inquiring minds want to know!!!

He’d better go ahead and suck 530 now, because you and I both know that as soon as a dollar is to be made the other way the oracle will discard his current association with the lefties.

 

[Hullbilly]

He’d better go ahead and suck 530 now, because you and I both know that as soon as a dollar is to be made the other way the oracle will discard his current association with the lefties.

Whore’n ain’t easy.

 

[rrrr]

Which deal is that, the one Obama and his SoS made to pay them not to build nukes?

Maybe he's talking about Clinton giving Kim Jong Il $400 million in cash, and about a billion in free oil, food, and other enticements, which accomplished nothing.

 

[rrrr]

i know how much y’all hated returning Iran’s money in exchange for them shelving their nuke program (at least for a decade). But now they have the money and thanks to Trump unilaterally withdrawing, they are gonna go ahead and restart their nuke program unless the EU makes new concessions. What point was served in tearing up the deal after Iran got what it wanted?

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/05/08/middleeast/iran-nuclear-deal-intl/index.html?r=https://www.cnn.com/

Allow me to inject some reality into your ignorant babbling. The money Obama gave them is long gone. Iran's government talks a big game, but they can't do shit without cash to finance their nuclear ambitions and terrorist activities in other countries. Their oil revenues have declined $110 million per day since the sanctions were reimposed.

This is the reality, and Trump is the one bringing it:

Following Rouhani's announcement, the White House responded with new sanctions on Iran's iron, steel, aluminum, and copper sectors. In a statement, US President Donald Trump warned that "Tehran can expect further actions unless it fundamentally alters its conduct."

The graphs below are courtesy of the International Monetary Fund. Keep telling me how the sanctions will fail, Nostradamus.

 

[94Nautique]

Sure thing Stacia

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T377A using Tapatalk

 

[RVR SWPR]

RASMUSSEN THURSDAY MAY 09,2019
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 49% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance.

 

[530RL]

The Iranians bent Obama over and ravaged that booty hole. Worst “deal” in the history of deals. You (Obama) give us a shit ton of money and then take our word (Iranians) for it that we are not doing anything wrong. Come on man. I’m guessing that they took the money and put it directly into the nuclear program or they purchased a bunch of rockets to fire into Israel. Hey while your at it I heard ISIS, al qaeda and hezbollah are looking to make deals as well. Just like the Iranians they seem to be a trustworthy people.

Let's assume it was a bad deal. So let's look at Trump's strategy objectively.

1. Iran's nuclear program started with material and technology transfer from the US in 67. We gave it to them.

2. 7 Countries plus the EU signed the JCPOA.

3. The JCPOA had the "most intrusive" inspection program under any nuclear agreement in the history of the world. May not have been what everyone wanted, but it was by any objective measure the most intrusive inspection program ever.

4. Trump unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA, while the other signatories decided to stay in it. Obviously they thought it was a better deal than did Trump and you.

5. Trump put on sanctions not just on Iran, but on any of our allies that continued to live up to their commitments under the JCPOA. More simply, Trump not only pulled the US out but forced upon our allies an absolute inability to live up to the terms of an agreement they signed. Trump unilaterally precluded our allies from fulfilling their obligations under a international agreement.

6. Trump's sanctions, as RRR has pointed out have been very effective on their economy and their people's access to currency, food, medicine and other basic essentials.

7. Trump's supporters throughout the country, as shown in here on multiple occasions, believe that there is no such thing as a "moderate" or "peaceful" muslim and that all muslims throughout the world must be killed before they "put the knives to our throats". And naturally, that theme and message is not lost on the 1.8 billion Muslims throughout the world. 99.4% of Iran is Muslim.

So given these facts,

You are an Iranian, you are a muslim; what choices has Trump' policies towards Iran and his supporters views about Islam left you with?

What would you do if you were a proud patriotic Iranian?

 

[Grandpa mac]

Let's assume it was a bad deal. So let's look at Trump's strategy objectively.

1. Iran's nuclear program started with material and technology transfer from the US in 67. We gave it to them.

2. 7 Countries plus the EU signed the JCPOA.

3. The JCPOA had the "most intrusive" inspection program under any nuclear agreement in the history of the world. May not have been what everyone wanted, but it was by any objective measure the most intrusive inspection program ever.

4. Trump unilaterally pulled out of the JCPOA, while the other signatories decided to stay in it. Obviously they thought it was a better deal than did Trump and you.

5. Trump put on sanctions not just on Iran, but on any of our allies that continued to live up to their commitments under the JCPOA. More simply, Trump not only pulled the US out but forced upon our allies an absolute inability to live up to the terms of an agreement they signed. Trump unilaterally precluded our allies from fulfilling their obligations under a international agreement.

6. Trump's sanctions, as RRR has pointed out have been very effective on their economy and their people's access to currency, food, medicine and other basic essentials.

7. Trump's supporters throughout the country, as shown in here on multiple occasions, believe that there is no such thing as a "moderate" or "peaceful" muslim and that all muslims throughout the world must be killed before they "put the knives to our throats". And naturally, that theme and message is not lost on the 1.8 billion Muslims throughout the world. 99.4% of Iran is Muslim.

So given these facts,

You are a Iranian, what choices has Trump' policies towards Iran and his supporters views about Islam left you with?

What would you do if you were a proud patriotic Iranian?

Acquire nuclear missiles as soon as possible?

 

[regor]

What would you do if you were a proud patriotic Iranian?

Cut the head off of any Mullah that I could find that states "Death to Israel or the United States"

 

[RVR SWPR]

 

[rrrr]

What would you do if you were a proud patriotic Iranian?

I would band together with others that shared my thoughts, and rise up against the government.

With hundreds of thousands of supporters, we would proclaim the presidential election fraudulant, and hold huge protest gatherings. The United States, being the beacon of freedom and democracy, would do everything within its powers to assist the rebellion.

Oh, wait. This all really happened, except for that part about the US providing any type of assistance, because Barack Obama sat on his sanctimonious ass and did nothing, even when protesters were arrested and executed.

Trump's sanctions are intended to force the government to change or make it collapse. That's what you do when it's the only way to stop terrorist support and nuclear ambition.

I see you favor the Obama method.

 

[Old Texan]

I see you favor the Obama method.

Of course he does.......It's how narcissists think