Iran Nuclear Deal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]loppar wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
I just see them using the money to build the richest, highly armed “non-state” terrorist group in history. I mean how much of the money will be funneled to Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda and other such terrorist groups?
[/quote]

For the millionth time, Hamas and Al-Qaida (or what’s left of it) are sunni. There is nothing they hate more than shias - Iranians are shia. Anything relating to “the West” pales in comparison to this 1300 year old feud.
[/quote]
They both hate Jews more than they hate each other.

Assad has Russia, which is a far better ally than Iran, especially when it comes to arms.

[quote]

[quote]
How much of the money will be used to fortify their country with the latest and greatest Russian anti-ship, anti-plane, anti-satellite and intercontinental ballistic weaponry?[/quote]

Fortification? After the Iraq fiasco, the biggest Iranian deterrent was the size of their population.[/quote]

22

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This deal is entirely based on a premise that we trust Iran and believe them at their word. If this premise were true, we would have no need for a deal. We would let them do whatever they wanted.

We don’t think those things, and never have, which is why we are negotiating a deal in the first place.

Iran gets roughly a good month to prepare for inspections, after full and complete notice of the details of what other parties think should be inspected (and a chance to dispute such claims). So, it’s like a meth maker getting a month’s formal notice that the cops want to inspect a basement at a certain house on Elm Street because they think meth is being made there.
[/quote]

Obama negotiated from a position of desperation. He wanted to make a deal so bad, he gave up on the 24/7 access he said was a mandatory part of the negotiations. Giving 24 days notice prior to inspection is a far cry from surprise inspections anytime, any where.

23

Sounds vaguely familiar…

24

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This deal is entirely based on a premise that we trust Iran and believe them at their word. If this premise were true, we would have no need for a deal. We would let them do whatever they wanted.

We don’t think those things, and never have, which is why we are negotiating a deal in the first place.

Iran gets roughly a good month to prepare for inspections, after full and complete notice of the details of what other parties think should be inspected (and a chance to dispute such claims). So, it’s like a meth maker getting a month’s formal notice that the cops want to inspect a basement at a certain house on Elm Street because they think meth is being made there.
[/quote]

Obama negotiated from a position of desperation. He wanted to make a deal so bad, he gave up on the 24/7 access he said was a mandatory part of the negotiations. Giving 24 days notice prior to inspection is a far cry from surprise inspections anytime, any where. [/quote]

Exactly right. Which is also why Iran got the additional concession of getting access to non-nuclear arms as part of a deal on nuclear weapons and capabilities. Arms trade in this area had nothing to do with nuclear capabilities, so why was it added at the last minute, when it wasn’t part of any deal being discussed in the last?

From what I read this morning, Russia - obviously self-interested in this aspect of the deal - added it at the 11th hour. How could they do that? Because they were certain - based on how negotiations ans concessions progressed - that no one wanted a deal worse than the US, and as a result, they knew the US wouldn’t say no. It’s pitiful.

Importantly, some Senate Democrats are asking questions about this aspect of the deal.

25

We are giving them 150 BILLION dollars that they can use any way they want. Rice admits that it’s possible (read: probable) that Iran will use some of the money to fund it’s military and “the kinds of ‘bad behavior’ (read: TERRORISM) that we have seen in the region up until now”.

WE HAVE JUST FUNDED TERRORISM

OBAMA and KERRY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR TREASON

Treason, as defined in Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution is: “… shall consist of only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…”

Does anyone dispute that giving IRAN, the lead sponsor of terrorism IN THE WORLD who’s citizens chant “death to America” in their streets - giving them ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS, could only be considered “aid and comfort”? I mean, what the fuck are people thinking? Can anyone dispute that they are our enemy? Can anyone dispute that 150 BILLION dollars might give them “aid” and “comfort”? WTF!!!

26

I’m going to put my tin foil hat on for a minute.

Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that THE DAY AFTER they finalized this shitty deal with Iran, we have a “lone wolf” mass shooting?

Think about it.

The Media started lobbing “non-soft ball” questions, so another bright shiny piece of meat for them to chew on was thrown to them.

This administration has either been extremely lucky, or there is a definite pattern going on: on MANY occasions (particularly in the last two years) when something particularly controversial comes up that could possibly make the “administration” look bad, something magically eclipses it within a day or two and the MSLM loses interest in it…

THINK ABOUT IT…

27

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/07/16/gave-away-better-options-iran/BoNP56bH6I43sAMwG3FplO/story.html

Dershowitz says it great. Obama - so desperate to get Congress on board - very publicly explained that it was this deal or a far worse alternative. Having done so, he telegraphed to the other countries that the US was desperate for a deal, and that the US (or Obama, really) needed this deal more than an party at the negotiating tablr. Russia and Iran seized the opportunity.

This, of course, is a reason you work with the Senate on these issues and keep your leverage. All these issues get hashed out in private, and the President negotiates on behalf of everyone from a position of strength. Even if we were the most desperate (we weren’t, but anyway) you don’t let the other side know that.

Once again, Obama’s conceit blows up a chance to actually get a good deal for the American people.

28

So we give them 150 BILLION and allow them to keep 4 American’s as hostages…

and if you ask the god king about it, well … he gets butthurt

Major Garrett: As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran - three held on trumped up charges according to your administration, one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all of the fanfare around this [nuclear[ deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for, in relation to these four Americans?

And last week, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said under no circumstances should there be any relief for Iran in terms of ballistic missiles or conventional weapons. It was perceived that that was a last-minute capitulation in these negotiations, making the Pentagon feel you’ve left the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff hung out to dry. Could you comment?

President Obama: I’ve got to give you credit, Major, for how you craft those questions. The notion that I am content, as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails - Major, that’s nonsense. And you should know better. I’ve met with the families of some of those folks. Nobody’s content, and our diplomats and our teams are working diligently to try to get them out.

Now, if the question is why we did not tie the negotiations to their release, think about the logic that that creates. Suddenly, Iran realizes, you know what, maybe we can get additional concessions out of the Americans by holding these individuals - makes it much more difficult for us to walk away if Iran somehow thinks that a nuclear deal is dependent in some fashion on the nuclear deal. And by the way, if we had walked away from the nuclear deal, we’d still be pushing just as hard to get these folks out. That’s why those issues are not connected, but we are working every single day to try to get them out and won’t stop until they’re out and rejoined with their families.

With respect to the Chairman’s testimony, to some degree I already answered this with Carol. We are not taking the pressure off Iran with respect to arms and with respect to ballistic missiles. As I just explained, not only do we keep in place for five years the arms embargo this particular new UN resolution, not only do we maintain the eight years on the ballistic missiles under this particular UN resolution, but we have a host of other multilateral and unilateral authorities that allow us to take action where we see Iran engaged in those activities - whether it’s six years from now or 10 years from now.

So, we have not lost those legal authorities, and in fact part of my pitch to the GCC countries, as well as to Prime Minister Netanyahu, is we should do a better job making sure that Iran’s not engaged in sending arms to organizations like Hezbollah, and as I just indicated, that means improving our intelligence capacity and our interdiction capacity with our partners."

good thing the media is not in bed with the democrats

because bill cosby questions are relevant to Iran…

29

I try to be respectful when speaking about President Obama, but it is becoming more and more difficult. I’ll be extremely surprised if this deal doesn’t directly lead to boots on the ground in 5-10 years. How we haven’t gotten these hostages back, and that’s exactly what they are, is disgraceful.

30

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
I’m going to put my tin foil hat on for a minute.

Does anyone think it’s a coincidence that THE DAY AFTER they finalized this shitty deal with Iran, we have a “lone wolf” mass shooting?

Think about it.

The Media started lobbing “non-soft ball” questions, so another bright shiny piece of meat for them to chew on was thrown to them.

This administration has either been extremely lucky, or there is a definite pattern going on: on MANY occasions (particularly in the last two years) when something particularly controversial comes up that could possibly make the “administration” look bad, something magically eclipses it within a day or two and the MSLM loses interest in it…

THINK ABOUT IT…[/quote]

Originally, when I put me tin foil hat on, I thought it might have more to do with Jade Helm than anything else. Partly because there’s been reports that the mainstream media(I consider that ALL TV, Newspaper, and Radio) were not allowed to report on it.

But you point is warranted as well. So now I guess I don’t know.

I will say though when you look at Regime’s like Al Qaeda and ISIS they basically recruit “suicide soldiers” under promises of blessings from Alah, and better lives for the family they leave behind.

Their followers, in part due to their religion, are like sheep.

It’s really not a stretch to assume that certain regime’s in the US, or at the very least working in the interest of the US, would do the same.

31

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I try to be respectful when speaking about President Obama, but it is becoming more and more difficult. I’ll be extremely surprised if this deal doesn’t directly lead to boots on the ground in 5-10 years. How we haven’t gotten these hostages back, and that’s exactly what they are, is disgraceful. [/quote]

I used to say that he was the worst modern day President far exceeding Jimmy Carter. But after a little research I’m thinking he might be the worst President in the our history. I’m not sure yet but I am leaning that way.

32

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I try to be respectful when speaking about President Obama, but it is becoming more and more difficult. I’ll be extremely surprised if this deal doesn’t directly lead to boots on the ground in 5-10 years. How we haven’t gotten these hostages back, and that’s exactly what they are, is disgraceful. [/quote]

I used to say that he was the worst modern day President far exceeding Jimmy Carter. But after a little research I’m thinking he might be the worst President in the our history. I’m not sure yet but I am leaning that way.[/quote]

Carter was dumb, but he wasn’t that dumb. The negotiations he did have at least had some level of give and take and at least partially successful.
Obama is the smartest man in the room, and if you disagree with him then ‘fuck you’. What pushed me over the line was that whole ‘Climate change is our worst national security issue’ crap. It’s beyond words how stupid that is, especially in the context of what is going on. Hell, even in complete peace, that would have been a stupid thing to say, much less in the face of all the islamic extremist attacks. Not sure how many people have to die for him to acknowledge the problem, but clearly not enough for reality to sink in.
There are cases where keeping you enemies closer is a bad idea. This is one of those cases.
Hell, I could have negotiated a deal where a sworn enemy practically gets everything they want and we get nothing. That’s not hard to negotiate.
“Here, we’ll give you anything you want, just promise you won’t make a bomb,OK?” What a fucking retard.
Never thought I would miss Bush, but boy do I miss Bush. He may not have been the best, but there would be no ISIS and Iran would not get shit, but a middle finger.

33

Read this article and tell me something isn’t wrong with this executive agreement…in fact, it’s worse than I ever thought.

Is this editorial correct, and if it is, what’s your opinion on how Obama and company circumvented the Senate and even the Constitution!??

Has this agreement opened the door not only to the Iranian government gaining nuclear and conventional weapons & maximizing aid to terrorist groups worldwide, but to the erosion of our very national sovereignty?

34

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I try to be respectful when speaking about President Obama, but it is becoming more and more difficult. I’ll be extremely surprised if this deal doesn’t directly lead to boots on the ground in 5-10 years. How we haven’t gotten these hostages back, and that’s exactly what they are, is disgraceful. [/quote]

Have any critics of the of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in this thread actually studied the full text of the treaty? All 159 pages? I’m genuinely curious.

What makes you believe that US ground forces will very likely invade Iran as a result of the deal? ¨Extremely surprised¨ implies you believe that the probability of a ground war is highly likely or almost certain. The top brass hasn’t exactly made it a secret that a war with Iran would be rife with costs and risks that outweigh the costs and risks of containment.

A deal actually significantly strengthens the credibility, legitimacy, and efficacy of a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Even Iran hawks should be for the deal.

What policy alternative to the deal would you propose? As I see it, the US is left with a daunting dilemma: war or containment. The current sanctions regime is unsustainable, especially in light of the recent accord. To tighten the economic screw any further would bring the entire edifice crashing down. Unilateral US sanctions would merely be mitigated by the relieved pressures of other states.

The deal is better than the outcome had the negotiations broken down, and by a wide margin. I can easily imagine a better deal (what ought to be), but in the world as it is, this deal is quite good.

35

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I try to be respectful when speaking about President Obama, but it is becoming more and more difficult. I’ll be extremely surprised if this deal doesn’t directly lead to boots on the ground in 5-10 years. How we haven’t gotten these hostages back, and that’s exactly what they are, is disgraceful. [/quote]

Have any critics of the of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in this thread actually studied the full text of the treaty? All 159 pages? I’m genuinely curious.

What makes you believe that US ground forces will very likely invade Iran as a result of the deal? Ã?¨Extremely surprisedÃ?¨ implies you believe that the probability of a ground war is highly likely or almost certain. The top brass hasn’t exactly made it a secret that a war with Iran would be rife with costs and risks that outweigh the costs and risks of containment. [/quote]

You take things way to literally. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has already said he won’t honor the agreement. The Israeli’s are not happy. I doubt anyone in the region is happy. So ya, I wouldn’t be surprised if we end up with boots on the ground in the next 5-10 years or so.

[quote]
A deal actually significantly strengthens the credibility, legitimacy, and efficacy of a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Even Iran hawks should be for the deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2015/04/03/if-you-really-want-to-bomb-iran-take-the-deal/ [/quote]

I’m sure President Obama will strike when the Iranians break the deal…

You don’t know that the current sanction regime is unsustainable. That’s just one of this administrations talking points.

[quote]
The deal is better than the outcome had the negotiations broken down, and by a wide margin. I can easily imagine a better deal (what ought to be), but in the world as it is, this deal is quite good.[/quote]

I don’t think bending over for a known sponsor of terrorism is in any possible scenario, other than academia, a good deal.

I also think leaving American hostages, one of which is a Marine, is disgraceful.

36

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I try to be respectful when speaking about President Obama, but it is becoming more and more difficult. I’ll be extremely surprised if this deal doesn’t directly lead to boots on the ground in 5-10 years. How we haven’t gotten these hostages back, and that’s exactly what they are, is disgraceful. [/quote]

I used to say that he was the worst modern day President far exceeding Jimmy Carter. But after a little research I’m thinking he might be the worst President in the our history. I’m not sure yet but I am leaning that way.[/quote]

Carter was dumb, but he wasn’t that dumb. The negotiations he did have at least had some level of give and take and at least partially successful.
Obama is the smartest man in the room, and if you disagree with him then ‘fuck you’. What pushed me over the line was that whole ‘Climate change is our worst national security issue’ crap. It’s beyond words how stupid that is, especially in the context of what is going on. Hell, even in complete peace, that would have been a stupid thing to say, much less in the face of all the islamic extremist attacks. Not sure how many people have to die for him to acknowledge the problem, but clearly not enough for reality to sink in.
There are cases where keeping you enemies closer is a bad idea. This is one of those cases.
Hell, I could have negotiated a deal where a sworn enemy practically gets everything they want and we get nothing. That’s not hard to negotiate.
“Here, we’ll give you anything you want, just promise you won’t make a bomb,OK?” What a fucking retard.
Never thought I would miss Bush, but boy do I miss Bush. He may not have been the best, but there would be no ISIS and Iran would not get shit, but a middle finger.[/quote]

What makes you think that Iran is a sworn enemy of Obama? People need to start putting the pieces together.

  1. Obama distances himself from Israel almost from his first day in office.

  2. Obama is basically allowing Iran to have the bomb and gives the farm away during the negotiations.

  3. Obama does very little to stop ISIS. He certainly does not bring the full force of the US military to bear on them.

  4. Obama was raised as a Muslim and in fact said that he was still a Muslim in an early interview with George Snuffilupagus…but then corrected himself. (yeah that happens to me every day).

Do I have to continue?

There is no crisis in Obama’s eyes, no enemy to fight, other than white American patriots. And by allowing millions of illegal Mexicans through the border he is attempting to correct that.

At this point the only other alternative is to believe that he is actually a stupid man, or exceptionally naive, and I highly doubt that.

Someone tell me I’m wrong because I really don’t want to believe what I am seeing year after year. But at this point I cannot think of a better reason for what he’s doing.

37

Zeb:

For you, many Conservatives (and for anyone else, for or against him…); you’re going to see what you’re going to see in the President…and nothing anybody writes or says is going to change that.

To do otherwise is a waste of time and effort.

Mufasa

38

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Zeb:

For you, many Conservatives (and for anyone else, for or against him…); you’re going to see what you’re going to see in the President…and nothing anybody writes or says is going to change that.

To do otherwise is a waste of time and effort.

Mufasa[/quote]

Look Mufasa I don’t want to believe what I’m seeing. Yet, things keep happening that do not make sense. We often disagree but I have always thought that you were a smart individual. So, please explain what Obama is doing. Am I so conservative that I am seeing things incorrectly? Point out exactly how the above makes sense. Please explain how Obama has helped the US, created jobs, prevented Terrorism from growing and negotiated a good deal with Iran, improved the border situation and probably a laundry list of other things that just do not add up.

I really want to view Obama’s efforts through someone else’s eye’s. The way I am seeing Obama lately it seems that he should be impeached for treason.

Is this just ultra liberalism run amuck?

Is this guy working for the other side?

Is he just naïve?

Am I simply not understanding Obama’s path to success for the US?

By all means Mufasa educate me on what he is doing and why it’s good for the US.

Thank you,

Zeb

39

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I try to be respectful when speaking about President Obama, but it is becoming more and more difficult. I’ll be extremely surprised if this deal doesn’t directly lead to boots on the ground in 5-10 years. How we haven’t gotten these hostages back, and that’s exactly what they are, is disgraceful. [/quote]

I used to say that he was the worst modern day President far exceeding Jimmy Carter. But after a little research I’m thinking he might be the worst President in the our history. I’m not sure yet but I am leaning that way.[/quote]

Carter was dumb, but he wasn’t that dumb. The negotiations he did have at least had some level of give and take and at least partially successful.
Obama is the smartest man in the room, and if you disagree with him then ‘fuck you’. What pushed me over the line was that whole ‘Climate change is our worst national security issue’ crap. It’s beyond words how stupid that is, especially in the context of what is going on. Hell, even in complete peace, that would have been a stupid thing to say, much less in the face of all the islamic extremist attacks. Not sure how many people have to die for him to acknowledge the problem, but clearly not enough for reality to sink in.
There are cases where keeping you enemies closer is a bad idea. This is one of those cases.
Hell, I could have negotiated a deal where a sworn enemy practically gets everything they want and we get nothing. That’s not hard to negotiate.
“Here, we’ll give you anything you want, just promise you won’t make a bomb,OK?” What a fucking retard.
Never thought I would miss Bush, but boy do I miss Bush. He may not have been the best, but there would be no ISIS and Iran would not get shit, but a middle finger.[/quote]

What makes you think that Iran is a sworn enemy of Obama? People need to start putting the pieces together.

  1. Obama distances himself from Israel almost from his first day in office.

  2. Obama is basically allowing Iran to have the bomb and gives the farm away during the negotiations.

  3. Obama does very little to stop ISIS. He certainly does not bring the full force of the US military to bear on them.

  4. Obama was raised as a Muslim and in fact said that he was still a Muslim in an early interview with George Snuffilupagus…but then corrected himself. (yeah that happens to me every day).

Do I have to continue?

There is no crisis in Obama’s eyes, no enemy to fight, other than white American patriots. And by allowing millions of illegal Mexicans through the border he is attempting to correct that.

At this point the only other alternative is to believe that he is actually a stupid man, or exceptionally naive, and I highly doubt that.

Someone tell me I’m wrong because I really don’t want to believe what I am seeing year after year. But at this point I cannot think of a better reason for what he’s doing.[/quote]

Well I meant a sworn enemy of the United States. Obama wants to be their best friends. Only problem is they don’t like him anywhere nears as much as he likes them. An enemy of the United States is a friend of obama.

40

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I try to be respectful when speaking about President Obama, but it is becoming more and more difficult. I’ll be extremely surprised if this deal doesn’t directly lead to boots on the ground in 5-10 years. How we haven’t gotten these hostages back, and that’s exactly what they are, is disgraceful. [/quote]

Have any critics of the of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in this thread actually studied the full text of the treaty? All 159 pages? I’m genuinely curious.
[/quote]
I have looked but I could not find the actual text of the agreement, only what has been revealed by the media. If you have a link to the text of the actual agreement, please post the link. The link in the article results in a ‘404 not found’ error.

We did not need a deal for that. I don’t think anybody is for overt military action against Iran. I.E. we do not want a war with Iran if it can avoid it.

I do not see where war or containment were the only 2 options. If we are truly to that point, we are a lot closer to war than we have been led to believe.

[quote]

The deal is better than the outcome had the negotiations broken down, and by a wide margin. I can easily imagine a better deal (what ought to be), but in the world as it is, this deal is quite good.[/quote]

What is good about it?