Iran nuclear deal signed in Geneva

Money is money, and if you won't trade with Iran there's plenty that will.

There were a few logistical problems in 2006, but in my view nothing too terrible.

The destruction inflicted on the Lebanese aggressors was quite satisfactory in my opinion.

My guess is that everyone was disgusted that those two ministers who sabotaged the strike were now publicly calling for attacks on Iran, and everyone wanted to expose their hypocrisy on the issue.

Then the world can arrange it on their own, and they might be able to if they weren't sucking on the teat of the American military for their defense.

If you don't like what America does (and I'm sure you won't when next we have a Republican president) as respects foreign policy then vote to elect leaders in your country who are willing to separate your country from the American umbrella. And when they do you can kiss your beloved social programs goodbye.

Fine trade with them as you will, but at least have the balls not to expect us to defend you if you've made a deal with the devil.

Iran isn't the problem, an accommodation with Iran is sensible. It's better than creating ISIS which was Bush's legacy and the legacy of those who voted for him. Your legacy.

You could have the balls to own up to your mistakes, and for all the innocent lives killed because of the ignorance and mind numbing stupidity of Americans like you.

The only country to invoke article 5 of the NATO alliance is the USA.

Tony Blair made a deal with the devil resulting in carnage and terrorism.

The majority of Americans have no clue what is actually in the deal because they have been continually lied to about it. The same way they were lied to by the opposition to the ACA.

You left out it is people like you doing the lying.

Since you can read (and certainly the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is written in plain English) - would you like giving a quote where parados lied about it?

Hey Wally. I don't need to give you a quote. It would be a waste of time with you.

Pinky-darling, you are sooo sweet. Just try it - with or without the annexes, whatever floats your boat.

Not that there's any reason for you to recall, but I've posted on more than one occasion that the Bush Administration botched the Iraq expedition. I don't agree that it was a mistake to invade. Since they really didn't have much of a plan beyond taking out the Iraqi army and Saddam, in retrospect the invasion shouldn't have taken place, but hindsight is always 20/20.

As importantly though, despite scotching the thing up to a fair-the-well, the Surge was successful in bringing down the violence and creating stability. It could have been built upon by Obama, but he was bound and determined to get us out of the country. He can't be absolved of responsibility for the rise of ISIS since he helped destabilize the situation. If someone handed you control of a situation that is a mess that never should have been made, would that make you free of responsibility if you washed your hands of the entire matter and allowed an even greater mess to follow?

One of the reasons Obama is such a poor leader is that he's believed that it was never really his job to clean up any messes handed to him. Instead he felt comfortable blaming them on Bush, as if this freed him of responsibility to fix them. So he did want he wanted to do based on his personal ideology rather than what he needed to do.

He, like you, though it was a big mistake to invade Iraq. In and of itself there's nothing, at all, wrong with that. It certainly wasn't a black and white issue. However, unlike you, he had the responsibility to deal with the mess that arose from a decision with which he disagreed. It obviously would have meant that he continue an effort whose origins he ideologically opposed. So what did he do? He went with his ideological inclinations and withdrew all forces from Iraq; opening the door for ISIS.
That's not leadership.

Of course it was, look how stable Iraq is now. Don't blame Obama, Bush committed the troops, the American people voted Obama to get the troops out. Bush took his eye on the ball, and his illegal invasion of Iraq set a precedent emboldening Putin to act first in Georgia and then the Ukraine.

Not making a peace deal with Iran would be as disastrous. You Republicans just **** things up, you've tried war, give peace a chance.

You live with the leaders your fellow citizens elect.

I can assure you that your distaste for Blair is no greater than mine for Obama.

In any case you continue to dodge the central question: Are you prepared to reject the protection of the American Defense Umbrella so that your nation is not beholden to the US in any way? I know you desperately long for the latter, but if you are in full force favor of the former, then I know you have no understanding of geo-politics and the economics it greatly influences.

I once had dinner with one of your countrymen and he, like you, was all for a UK totally independent of US political influence. This was during the Cold War and I asked him what he thought would happen if the USSR decided to invade Europe and the US refrained from getting involved. Churchillean swagger ensued about fighting them on the beaches and so forth. He was adamant that the UK people could turn back the Russian Bear.

It great to be a patriot and believe in one's people, but obviously he was delusional. The UK had the atomic bomb, but would it have ever used it, knowing that the retaliation would level the entire island? I doubt it.

It just reminds me how much it must suck for an Anti-American citizen in one of our vassal states - especially one that once ruled the globe. Of course being a vassal of the US is unlike any similar arrangement throughout history, but not being able to vote in the elections of a nation that has such great influence on your own has got to chaff. To some extent it leaves you at the mercy of "stupid" people like me.

Oh well, Britannia, obviously, couldn't rule the waves for all time, and the attempt to turn a European Union into a geo-political and economic powerhouse that might challenge America, just hasn't panned out, has it?

And how they are being lied to about Hillary Clinton...I know parados, I know.

As simplistic an assessment as I would expect from you.

My distaste for Blair was non-existent until the election of Dubya. He did a lot of good prior to that.

It's not about one's personal distaste, it's about certain political figures suckling at the teat of the arms industry, creating a climate of fear which leads to indiscriminate slaughter across the ME. Which in turn it leads to an increased climate of fear, increased arms sales and more politicians in the pockets of the arms industry.

Halliburton is looking to make another killing, (literally,) the last thing they want is a peace scare.

Hey CJ. Did you know no rational human being would believe a word you utter even if you had both your hands on the bible. You not only lie through your teeth but are so stupid you actually believe a normal person would believe a word you utter.

Walter, your americanism have improved. Have you acquired a U S of A dictionary?