Txdigest.com

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 11:53 am**

its good and info is accurate as far as I know . And , for the longest time some people have been saying that mrobama is just naïve or disinterested . I call this deal something totally totally different than naïve or disinterested

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:06 pm**

Brought to you courtesy of your friends at AIPAC.

David Zuker was raised Jewish from both parents.

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 12:36 pm**

maybe , course I think that the info is correct . The most galling is the protecting the 'iranians' from attack which sets the USA to fight against Israel Steve .

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:20 pm**

ralph wrote:maybe , course I think that the info is correct . The most galling is the protecting the 'iranians' from attack which sets the USA to fight against Israel Steve .

Now Ralph, we have talked about this before. You know there is no such clause in the agreement. Remember when you posted this article:

http://www.jpost.com/landedpages/printa ... ?id=415079

Remember when I pointed out that the article said the claims were baseless as there was no such requirement? This is how counter-factual stuff like this becomes an article of faith with some folks who know no better. You got all your information from a headline. Now, you repeat it as fact. It was bad enough that its mention in a headline fooled you...now you pass on the same information.

Have you people just totally lost touch with reality?

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:49 pm**

We can argue about the details of the agreement forever. No matter what they are, if Iran wants it to work it will. If they don't, it won't. I'm pretty sure they do because that is the only way out of this mess for them.

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:35 pm**

Ralph's right about the U.S. being required to protect Iran's nuclear facilities.

We can only hope Israel attacks them anyhow.

When U.S. planes head out to intercept Israeli jets..I'll be rooting for Israel.

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:00 pm**

GFB wrote:Ralph's right about the U.S. being required to protect Iran's nuclear facilities.

We can only hope Israel attacks them anyhow.

When U.S. planes head out to intercept Israeli jets..I'll be rooting for Israel.

I believe in the past Israel has sabataged Iran's nuclear industry by blowing up it's facilities and murdering it's scientists. So, you believe we should just allow that to coninue?

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:10 pm**

planosteve wrote:
GFB wrote:Ralph's right about the U.S. being required to protect Iran's nuclear facilities.

We can only hope Israel attacks them anyhow.

When U.S. planes head out to intercept Israeli jets..I'll be rooting for Israel.

I believe in the past Israel has sabataged Iran's nuclear industry by blowing up it's facilities and murdering it's scientists. So, you believe we should just allow that to coninue?

Allowing them?

I think we should be heading that operation!

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:26 pm**

planosteve wrote:
GFB wrote:Ralph's right about the U.S. being required to protect Iran's nuclear facilities.

We can only hope Israel attacks them anyhow.

When U.S. planes head out to intercept Israeli jets..I'll be rooting for Israel.

I believe in the past Israel has sabataged Iran's nuclear industry by blowing up it's facilities and murdering it's scientists. So, you believe we should just allow that to coninue?

thanks for confirmation Steve and Greg. As far as Iranians it seem to me that any of their top or little dogs working to destroy the USA , Israel or the West are legitimate TARGETS Steve .

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:44 pm**

GFB wrote:Ralph's right about the U.S. being required to protect Iran's nuclear facilities.

We can only hope Israel attacks them anyhow.

When U.S. planes head out to intercept Israeli jets..I'll be rooting for Israel.

It sounds like you need to read the article Ralph posted too. We are NOT required to protect all their nuke facilities. We are obligated to defend anything. We are obligated to assist in preventing sabotage or their existing , legal, recognized facilities. A direct Israel attack would not fall under this requirement.

Please try to stay grounded in reality rather than half-sorta-wannabe reality.

And that is disgusting that you would wish ill to our airmen following their lawful orders...for whatever reason. I suppose we can put you in the NO column for Supports Troops.

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:48 pm**

and yeah Greg , leading the attack operation on 'iran' would be a good thing and I'd like to see it done .

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 5:58 pm**

July 23, 2015 5:42 pm

Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare.

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:13 pm**

Thanks SSteve !!

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:30 pm**

Sangersteve wrote:
July 23, 2015 5:42 pm

Top Obama administration officials testified Thursday that the United States would help ensure the “physical security” of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure as part of the nuclear agreement they reached with the Islamic republic two weeks ago.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) asked the assembled officials whether a controversial provision in Annex III of the agreement obligated the United States to help protect Iran’s nuclear program from future sabotage by Iran’s opponents, notably Israel.

The charge was ducked, but not denied, by Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz.

“I believe that refers to things like physical security and safeguards,” Moniz said. “All of our options and those of our allies and friends will remain in place.”

Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that the annex in question was designed to ensure that Iran’s nuclear capacity was “adequately protected” from unconventional threats such as cyber warfare.

Yes..thanks, Steve.

...and I think that post needed to be enlarged.

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 6:58 pm**

Worst. President. Ever.

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:01 pm**

GFB, saying it louder or repeatedly will not change the meaning one bit. Nothing in that obligates us to go to war to defend anything in Iran. Pretend what you want.

Say, I'll bet you are a big fan of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty...really classy operation. Allies my ...well, they aren't anybody's friend but their own.

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:17 pm**

hey Thanks for posting that and posting it in large print Greg !!

Posted: **Tue Sep 15, 2015 8:29 pm**

Castle Doctrine wrote:GFB, saying it louder or repeatedly will not change the meaning one bit. Nothing in that obligates us to go to war to defend anything in Iran. Pretend what you want.

Say, I'll bet you are a big fan of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty...really classy operation. Allies my ...well, they aren't anybody's friend but their own.

You are delusional.

Stuxnet virus was developed by Seimens to render Iran's nuke development neutered, but that was pre-Obama.

Txdigest.com

Side effects

Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects

Re: Side effects