Scott Walker would undo any nuclear agreement with Iran not knowing what's in it.

[HomerJS]

Way to go. So Scotty would undo on his first day as President an agreement with Iran that has not been completed.

Scotty would undo what Scotty doesn't know. Sounds pretty responsible to me <sarcasm>

"Absolutely," Walker said in response to a question on Hugh Hewitt's radio show about whether he would "disown" such a deal. "On day one. I mean, to me…the concept of a nuclear Iran is not only problematic for Iran, and certainly for Israel, but it opens the doors. I mean, the Saudis are next. You're going to have plenty of others in the region. People forget that even amongst the Islamic world, there is no love lost between the Saudis and the Iranians."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-walker-disown-iran-us-nuclear

 

[ivwshane]

Stupid appeals to stupid, just look at his supporters.

How's his states economy doing btw?

 

[Mxylplyx]

The outright lies that come out of politicians mouths when they are campaigning is sickening. If he somehow got elected, he'd walk that back in a hurry. You don't just tear up a multinational agreement negotiated by 6 world powers, but then again you don't make end runs around the POTUS in an attempt to conduct a parallel foreign policy, so who knows that these idiots will actually do these days.

 

[Vic]

In order to appeal to a populist base, a politician or pundit must present highly complex issues as though they are black-and-white simple.

 

[soundforbjt]

Way to go. So Scotty would undo on his first day as President an agreement with Iran that has not been completed.

Scotty would undo what Scotty doesn't know. Sounds pretty responsible to me <sarcasm>



http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-walker-disown-iran-us-nuclear

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE&list=RD0Vyj1C8ogtE#t=0

 

[smackababy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vyj1C8ogtE&list=RD0Vyj1C8ogtE#t=0

I can't see this link, but I really hope it is what is playing in my head now!

 

[bradly1101]

Just like Netanyahu who truly never wanted a state for Palestine (and therefore peace - he is ex-military), some like Walker would rather fight than make an agreement, which is sold as capitulation.

 

[Moonbeam]

In order to appeal to a populist base, a politician or pundit must present highly complex issues as though they are black-and-white simple.

A built in feature and advantage of the CBD.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

When your tenure of leadership is marked by repeatedly slashing education funding, you have to subtly adjust your arguments to resonate with the newly-ignorant population you've helped create. For example, "there are significant risks involved with potential nuclear armament of a country that has been openly hostile to both us and our allies in a region fraught with millenia of geopolitical strife, but we're willing to consider reasonable proposals," might be a bit too wordy for his base; better to go with "IRAN BIG BAD, NO BOOM BOOM."

 

[michal1980]

When your tenure of leadership is marked by repeatedly slashing education funding, you have to subtly adjust your arguments to resonate with the newly-ignorant population you've helped create. For example, "there are significant risks involved with potential nuclear armament of a country that has been openly hostile to both us and our allies in a region fraught with millenia of geopolitical strife, but we're willing to consider reasonable proposals," might be a bit too wordy for his base; better to go with "IRAN BIG BAD, NO BOOM BOOM."

So the solution to better education is spending even more money? Someone tell the rest off the world that because somehow they spend less and get better results

 

[HomerJS]

So the solution to better education is spending even more money? Someone tell the rest off the world that because somehow they spend less and get better results

Instead of spending more how about Scotty cutting 300 million on higher education and giving 500 million to the Milwaukee Bucks??

Sound ok to you??

 

[Jhhnn]

So the solution to better education is spending even more money? Someone tell the rest off the world that because somehow they spend less and get better results

It seems clear that cutting spending won't make education better, will it?

Well, other than in Walker's corner of greater Glenbeckistan.

WTF does Walker think that repudiating a UN agreement would accomplish, anyway?

What's the next step, Mr Wizard?

 

[MongGrel]

Hell yeah boys, lets elect this man !!!!

Hot damn, then we can ship a buncha little 9 year old girls down to the border and give em Uzi's and let e shoot a the Innagrants (mispelling intended) crossing the damned border.

Yeeeeeeee Fucking Haaaaaaa.

*Just elect me more or less, people just love this shit for some reason and seems to be working atm*

:whiste:

I'm all for nuking parts of my own country these days, almost.

 

[cubby1223]

Read the link. The question was not would you disown any deal with Iran not knowing what's in it, as the thread title clearly states. It was would you disown any deal "that leaves Iran uranium enrichment".

Oh, my bad, though shalt not walk in on and question the circle jerk

 

[Jhhnn]

Read the link. The question was not would you disown any deal with Iran not knowing what's in it, as the thread title clearly states. It was would you disown any deal "that leaves Iran uranium enrichment".

Oh, my bad, though shalt not walk in on and question the circle jerk

Obviously, any deal will leave Iran with uranium enrichment or they won't go for it. That's a guaranteed no-brainer. Walker said he'd disown it.

Nice try, anyway.

 

[cubby1223]

Obviously, any deal will leave Iran with uranium enrichment or they won't go for it. That's a guaranteed no-brainer. Walker said he'd disown it.

Nice try, anyway.

If there is a condition on what is or is not in the deal for whether you would disown the deal or not, then the decision is based on knowing what's in the deal. This thread title incorrectly states otherwise.

 

[HomerJS]

If there is a condition on what is or is not in the deal for whether you would disown the deal or not, then the decision is based on knowing what's in the deal. This thread title incorrectly states otherwise.

First of all Iran already has enrichment. A few hundred centrifuges early in Bush's term turned into thousands at the end.

Second the deal hasn't been completed YET! Hey stupid (Scotty not you) how about reading the deal first? Gonna be kinda tough to get to that signing while doing all that ballroom dancing and getting wasted on day #1

 

[cubby1223]

First of all Iran already has enrichment. A few hundred centrifuges early in Bush's term turned into thousands at the end.

Second the deal hasn't been completed YET! Hey stupid (Scotty not you) how about reading the deal first? Gonna be kinda tough to get to that signing while doing all that ballroom dancing and getting wasted on day #1

Firstly, we all know Iran is currently enriching uranium.

Secondly, again, we all know this deal hasn't been completed yet. That's why it was not a blanket rejection like your thread title states. It's a rejection of one possible term that could or could not exist in the completed deal.

Just because one country is doing something today, doesn't make it is non-negotiable. That's what negotiating is all about. That's what deal-making is all about. Do something or give up something in order to achieve something else.


Since you seem to have all the answers, please kindly remind us what the purpose/goal of this deal with Iran is. What is Obama trying to achieve for the U.S.? And, of course, the follow-up question is going to be, what do you suspect will be the mechanism that guarantees if the U.S. holds up to our side of the agreement that Iran will hold up to their side and we achieve our goal?

And do take all the time you need to answer these questions. I know you're a bit slow on the learning curve, what with still believing GOP congressmen support Putin over Obama. I understand that you are slow. Take what time you need to work through the questions.

 

[sandorski]

Firstly, we all know Iran is currently enriching uranium...

...and?

Enriching does not = Nuke

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

If there is a condition on what is or is not in the deal for whether you would disown the deal or not, then the decision is based on knowing what's in the deal. This thread title incorrectly states otherwise.

This thread is a perfect example of how liberals dishonestly frame the facts as a matter of routine. I went back to the interview and one can plainly see that Walker was specifically referring to a potential deal that would allow continued enrichment...a contextual fact that the OP and article willfully failed to divulge. This kind or horseshit clearly demonstrates either intent to deceive or that we're dealing with goose-stepping pawns who somehow fancy themselves as having superior critical thinking skills. It seems that the jokes on them, but they don't get it.

BTW, the thread title is a lie assuming anybody around here cares about such things.

HH: Now I asked maybe one of your potential competitors yesterday, Senator Marco Rubio, who I know is a friend of yours.

SW: Good guy, yeah.

HH: I asked him yesterday would you disown and agreement that this president signs with Iran that leaves Iran uranium enrichment. What&#8217;s Scott Walker think about the deal, because that&#8217;s the outline, it appears?
SW: Absolutely.

HH: Would you reject that deal if you took the Oval Office?

SW: Absolutely, on Day One. I mean, to me, it is, the concept of a nuclear Iran is not only problematic for Iran, and certainly for Israel, but it opens the doors. I mean, the Saudis are next. You&#8217;re going to have plenty of others in the region. People forget that even amongst the Islamic world, there is no love lost between the Saudis and the Iranians. And so they&#8217;re going to want to have a nuclear weapon if the Iranians have a nuclear weapon. This is something that just escalates right before our eyes. And the fact that this administration began these discussions essentially conceding that they&#8217;re going to allow enrichment to go forward with the Iranians just shows you that they don&#8217;t have the same level of concern that I think I and Senator Rubio and many others out there have, that a nuclear Iran is a problem for the entire world, not just for Israel.

 

[sandorski]

This thread is a perfect example of how liberals dishonestly frame the facts as a matter of routine. I went back to the interview and one can plainly see that Walker was specifically referring to a potential deal that would allow continued enrichment...a contextual fact that the OP and article willfully failed to divulge. This kind or horseshit clearly demonstrates intent to deceive the goose-stepping pawns among us, who somehow fancy themselves as "intellectuals" with superior critical thinking skills. It seems that the jokes on them, but they don't get it.

BTW, the thread title is a lie assuming anybody around here cares about such things.

Enrichment will almost assuredly be allowed under the deal. It is perfectly acceptable under International Law for any Nation to Enrich Uranium. The reason is that Enriched Uranium has many applications and not just 1(Nukes).

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Enrichment will almost assuredly be allowed under the deal. It is perfectly acceptable under International Law for any Nation to Enrich Uranium. The reason is that Enriched Uranium has many applications and not just 1(Nukes).

What reason is there to enrich Uranium above 20% if it's not just for nukes?

 

[sandorski]

What reason is there to enrich Uranium above 20% if it's not just for nukes?

Research and Medicine use 20%ish levels. Certain Nuclear Power Plants require near that level(within 5%ish).

Although it is possible to develop a Nuclear Weapon with 20% enrichment, it is very impractical, requiring tons of 20% enriched Uranium to make a bomb. Iran has less than 300lbs of such material.

Any deal will have International monitoring, making it extremely unlikely that they could pursue a Weapons program without it being found out.

 

[Jaskalas]

The only way to stop an Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program, is war. Invade and destroy. Sticking our tongues out at them isn't going to accomplish anything.

Anyone that does not stand with Obama for making nice with the Iranians, is instead standing for WAR to stop nuclear proliferation. Cut the BS and draw the lines in the sand, we need to know where people and the politicians we elect stand on this issue.

Do we fight to kill Iranian Nukes?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Research and Medicine use 20%ish levels. Certain Nuclear Power Plants require near that level(within 5%ish).

Although it is possible to develop a Nuclear Weapon with 20% enrichment, it is very impractical, requiring tons of 20% enriched Uranium to make a bomb. Iran has less than 300lbs of such material.

Any deal will have International monitoring, making it extremely unlikely that they could pursue a Weapons program without it being found out.

Where are you getting your information? They aren't stopping at 20%...they have 9000 centrifuges spinning as we speak. At their current rate, they'll have enough 90% uranium for a nuclear bomb in less than 2 years.

http://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable