Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua!

Bienvenidos a CafeBoricua.com,  Un foro donde se discute la Politica Boricua aparte de otros temas de actualidad e interes.  Aqui existe la mayor libertad de expresion donde pueden debatir libremente.  Registrate!

 
Como la mayoria de las comunidades en linea necesita registrarse para poder postear en nuestra comunidad, pero no se preocupe esto es un proceso simple que solo requiere minima informacion. Sea parte de Cafe Boricua creando una cuenta con nosotros.  Puede logearse con su cuenta de Facebook o Twitter.

  • Comienze nuevos temas y responda a otros
  • Subscribirse a temas y foros y recibir actualizaciones automaticas.
  • Crea su propio perfil y haga nuevas amistades.
  • Comparta sus posteos o temas en las redes sociales.
  • Personalize su experiencia aqui.
  • Crea una encuesta!   Una gallery de fotos.  Anuncie un evento. 

Animate a participar en nuestro foro boricua!


Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Soto

3-Decade Gridlock Over: Iran Nuclear Deal

39 posts in this topic

¿Cuando EEUU va a publicar su programa antinuclear?  ¿Eliminará sus armas nucleares también?

 

 

#Free OscarLopez

 

No es question de eliminar armas nucleares, sino mas no permitir armas nucleares en países que son extremistas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
No es question de eliminar armas nucleares, sino mas no permitir armas nucleares en países que son extremistas. 

Cual es tu definición de "extremista"?

Educanos y presenta tu lista de países extremistas?

Y según tu comentario, si el país no es "extremista" esta bien que posee armas nucleares?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Cual es tu definición de "extremista"?

Educanos y presenta tu lista de países extremistas?

Y según tu comentario, si el país no es "extremista" esta bien que posee armas nucleares?

 

Llego el pregunton.....si quieres debatir sobre este tema pues dejes de ser pregunton y escribe tu argumento al respecto. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Profesor como argumentar sino no conozco su definición de "extremista" y para aun comprender mejor su comentario, ayudaría presentes lista  de países "extremistas". Gracias

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Bendito mijo!!!!! its time for your nap. LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Demostre mi posicion…el Profesor habla y decide pero no puede definir lo que defiende y esta no

es la primera vez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

El profesor es peligroso. Si alguien lo ve en una candidatura para lo que sea ........... saquele el cuerpo!! :puerco:



Y diganos para que salvemos a PR de un dictador potencial !!! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Payasin

 

 

 

Estas mas perdio que un juey bizco

Papo Christian se refiere a Soto como " profesor"  

No creo que tenga aspiraciones politicas y de serlo no le veo caracteristicas de dictador

 

Esta de mas decirle puerco ya que es de los foristas mas comedidos de CB

Parece que no te has tomado tus medicamentos hoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name="Mobutu Sese" post="2982332" timestamp="1385323333"]Demostre mi posicion…el Profesor habla y decide pero no puede definir lo que defiende y esta no
es la primera vez.[/quote

Verdaderamente quieres que define extremista? De verdad que no sabes como esos gobiernos gobiernan?


Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
No es question de eliminar armas nucleares, sino mas no permitir armas nucleares en países que son extremistas. 

Entonces la conclusión es que como EEUU no es "extremista" no tiene por qué eliminar sus armas nucleares.  Es la mejor contestación que me ha llegado sobre el tema.  Bueno, pues concluida mi participación en este tema, que de todas formas, no me interesa lo que ocurra en Irán.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Entonces la conclusión es que como EEUU no es "extremista" no tiene por qué eliminar sus armas nucleares. Es la mejor contestación que me ha llegado sobre el tema. Bueno, pues concluida mi participación en este tema, que de todas formas, no me interesa lo que ocurra en Irán.


EEUU tiene un buen control en cuánto armas nucleares. La democracia y sus proceso no permiten el mal uso de tal armas. Its Common sense Jesika.


Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Posted Image


Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Para los EU solo es decir a todo el mundo: HAZ LO QUE YO DIGO, PERO NO LO QUE YO HAGO......

Esa es la ley que impera en el mundo nuclear.......

EU puede utilizar las armas nucleares, pero mas nadie puede hacerlo sin su permiso.

Asi son las leyes de PEPE COJONES.....por eso es que los quieren mucho en todo el mundo....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Poseen armas nucleares:

USA

Inglaterra

Israel

Francia

 

Tambien…...

Rusia

China

Korea del Norte

Pakistan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Posted Image


Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

What was arguably candidate Barack Obama's biggest weakness in 2008 may become President Obama's biggest strength with the announcement of an interim deal with Iran to slow that country's nuclear program.

 

Since taking office in 2009, the President can boast successes including ending the war in Iraq, winding down the war in Afghanistan and killing al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

 

Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said on CNN's State of the Union Sunday that the deal could help the President's public perception. "Any time you see the President on the world stage, captain of the ship of state, you see him as the father figure for the country," Castellanos said. "That's a good thing for the President politically."

 

poll found that 56% of Americans said they would favor the kind of interim deal with Iran that was reached Saturday.

Edited by Soto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

(Photo: Wikimedia)
As news of a US-Iranian nuclear deal spread like wildfire this weekend, the mainstream media began to ask its usual set of questions. Is the deal for real? Can we trust the Iranians? Are the mullahs just using a temporary break in sanctions to buy enough time to build a bomb?
Ever since the Second Bush administration labeled Iran part of the "Axis of Evil," the media has portrayed the Iranian government as a scheming theocracy, so the discussion of the "two-faced Persians" isn't all that surprising.
But aside from being wildly racist, this portrayal is also wildly inaccurate. That's because the biggest threat to an American-Iranian accord comes from President Obama's enemies at home - Congressional Republicans - not from the Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.
Already Republican leaders in the Senate are calling for more sanctions against Iran. Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday that doing so is the only way to ensure a long-term deal between the U.S. and Iran.

The call for sanctions also has support in the House. Kevin McCarthy of California says that he backs any Senate plan to tighten restrictions on Iran's economy.

Republican attempts to sabotage a Democratice president's deal with Iran are nothing new, however.

Just ask Jimmy Carter.
In 1980 Carter thought he had reached a deal with newly-elected Iranian President Abdolhassan Bani-Sadr over the release of the fifty-two hostages held by radical students at the American Embassy in Tehran.

Bani-Sadr was a moderate and, as he explained in an editorial for The Christian Science Monitor earlier this year, had successfully run for President on the popular position of releasing the hostages:
"I openly opposed the hostage-taking throughout the election campaign.... I won the election with over 76 percent of the vote.... Other candidates also were openly against hostage-taking, and overall, 96 percent of votes in that election were given to candidates who were against it [hostage-taking]."

Carter was confident that with Bani-Sadr's help, he could end the embarrassing hostage crisis that had been a thorn in his political side ever since it began in November of 1979.

But Carter underestimated the lengths his opponent in the 1980 Presidential election, California Governor Ronald Reagan, would go to screw him over.

Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the 1980 Presidential election.
This was nothing short of treason. The Reagan campaign's secret negotiations with Khomeini - the so-called "October Surprise" - sabotaged Carter and Bani-Sadr's attempts to free the hostages. And as Bani-Sadr told The Christian Science Monitor in March of this year, they most certainly "tipped the results of the [1980] election in Reagan's favor."

Not surprisingly, Iran released the hostages on January 20, 1981, at the exact moment Ronald Reagan was sworn into office.

The "October Surprise" emboldened the radical forces inside Iran. A politically weakened Bani-Sadr was overthrown in June of 1981 and replaced with Mohammed Ali Rajai - a favorite of Khomeini's. These radical forces today are represented by people like former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hard-liners who oppose any deal with the United States and, like Khomeini in the 1980s, will jump at any chance to discredit the current moderate presidency of Hassan Rouhani.

The October Surprise also led to the deaths of thousands of innocent people around the world, and in Central America in particular. Reagan took money from the Iranians and used that money to kill nuns in Nicaragua.

But those are just the most obvious results of the October Surprise. Again, if Carter were able to free the hostages like he and Bani-Sadr had planned, Carter would have won re-election. After all, he was leading in most polls in the months leading up to the election. And if Reagan were never elected, America would be a much more progressive nation.

Flash-forward thirty-three years, and once again a Democratic President is trying to negotiate in good faith with Iran. President Obama has made a deal with the moderate Iranian President that - if everything goes as planned - will solve a major international crisis.

But like President Carter's deal, President Obama's deal is opposed by Republicans who have proven time and time again that they will stop at nothing to sabotage a Democrat in the White House.

And while there is no proof that Republican Senators are secretly asking Ayatollah Khameini to violate the terms of this weekend's nuclear deal, their obsession with slamming Iran with more sanctions is just as dangerous. We know what happened the last time a deal with Iran fell through because of Republican sabotage. Who knows what could happen this time?

A long-term Iranian nuclear deal would be a once in a generation chance for the United States to rethink its foreign policy. President Obama should go for it. But he should watch his back. Because if history tells us anything, it's that Republicans are more than willing to betray their country for a little short-term political gain.


Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Neville Soto  otra vez a defender a su líder ....no importa lo que pase...verdad?

Debes poner un disclaimer luego de tu nombre: "Soto, fanático demócrata"

Ni que estuvieras en la nomina de la Casa Blanca!

Edited by Mobutu Sese

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
[quote name="Mobutu Sese" post="2982722" timestamp="1385828577"] Neville Soto otra vez a defender a su líder ....no importa lo que pase...verdad? Debes poner un disclaimer luego de tu nombre: "Soto, fanático demócrata" Ni que estuvieras en la nomina de la Casa Blanca![/quote] Ese es tu mejor argumento? Sent from my iPhone Edited by Soto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0