truth on hold Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) From what I've heard (which is only from conventional news sources), the Saudis are every bit as riled up over our current handling of Iran's nuclear ambitions as are the Israelis. I remember one pundit using the term 'apoplectic'. the list of actors desperate to undermine a deal reads like a villian's who's who list: senators in bed with defense lobby, netanyahu, oppressive saudi wahabi extremists Edited March 12, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 My brother-in-law used to go over to the Emirates regularly for business; literally the first question he'd be asked in meetings was "When is the US going to do something about Iran?" People don't understand how much the Middle Eastern Arab states are freaking out over the idea of a nuclear Iran. There's already an arms race over it (the Saudis didn't buy Strike Eagles for ***** and grins.) Joe the Sandusky will find a way to blame everyone but Iran. Oops too late. Is your BIL a senator in bec with the defense industry? If he were wouldn't he want Iran to get weapons so they will be more of a threat? Wouldn't that be better for business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 So even the chief negotiator from the US admits the "deal" won't be legally binding? What kind of idiot sets out to negotiate a "deal" with a nation that has a solid track record of breaking agreements (UN inspectors denied access, etc.); a deal that has no teeth from jump? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/11/kerry-iran-deal-not-legally-binding/?intcmp=latestnews And even more stunning is to express umbrage when Republicans tell the "other party" that the "deal" has no legs? When I think of the foreign policy of the US, I think of the definition of foreign that means strange, alien, not normal. Sail On, Oh Ship of State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 the list of actors desperate to undermine a deal reads like a villian's who's who list: senators in bed with defense lobby, netanyahu, oppressive saudi wahabi extremists I take it then that you believe letting an Islamic theocracy who refers to us as the 'great satan' realize their desire for nuclear weapons technology is a good idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I take it then that you believe letting an Islamic theocracy who refers to us as the 'great satan' realize their desire for nuclear weapons technology is a good idea? Occam's razor says he's just a retard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 What kind of idiot sets out to negotiate a "deal" with a nation that has a solid track record of breaking agreements (UN inspectors denied access, etc.); a deal that has no teeth from jump? The kind of idiot who is quickly running out of time to put something positive in his presidential legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 John Kerry: Tom Cotton’s right, we’re not negotiating a legally binding deal with Iran Fallout: Saudis score nuclear deal with South Korea as Obama appeases Iran . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Why dont you Repubes find issues that resonate with American voters, and lay off the "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" chorus? Americans tend to think GOP Iran letter was inappropriate By 42% to 28% Americans say it was inappropriate for Republicans to send a letter to Iranian leaders warning them about striking a deal with President Obama https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/03/12/americans-senate-republicans-iran-letter-inappropr/ Edited March 13, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Why dont you Repubes find issues that resonate with American voters, and lay off the "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" chorus? Americans tend to think GOP Iran letter was inappropriate By 42% to 28% Americans say it was inappropriate for Republicans to send a letter to Iranian leaders warning them about striking a deal with President Obama https://today.yougov.com/news/2015/03/12/americans-senate-republicans-iran-letter-inappropr/ An internal, voluntary poll off a site that self-selects for progressives? You're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 I take it then that you believe letting an Islamic theocracy who refers to us as the 'great satan' realize their desire for nuclear weapons technology is a good idea? And what's your plan for stopping them from getting it? John Kerry: Tom Cotton’s right, we’re not negotiating a legally binding deal with Iran Fallout: Saudis score nuclear deal with South Korea as Obama appeases Iran . Your propaganda posts are the lowest crap on this board. Just right wing vomit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Saw this on another site and thought I'd post it here: This is why the administration shouldn't be making non-binding agreements with a country who calls us the "great satan" and has vowed to destroy not only Israel but us. If it is a worthy agreement treat it as a treaty and get it ratified by the senate. From what we can gather it gives Iran everything it wants by taking the sanctions away, while still letting them build their nuclear capabilities. Within 10 years they get their bombs with our blessing. How does this make us any safer? On a side note Saudi Arabia just entered into an agreement with South Korea to build two nuclear reactors for them. Does anyone think that this is anything but a poorly disguised effort for them to gain nuclear weapon capabilities? The Saudis are scared silly of Iran getting the bomb. By taking the pressure off of Iran by loosening the sanctions we may very well be facilitating a mideast arms race. This is why those senators are concerned. I agree that it is highly unusual for the legislative branch of our government to write such a letter but applaud them for their wisdom and concern for our future security. Lest anyone think that this is just partisan bickering, it is not. It is a sincere statement concerning the security of our country and the inability of this administration to see the folly of throwing away the "big stick" when it comes to dealing with the leaders of Iran. BTW, some of todays leaders of Iran are the very ones that took our diplomats hostage in the late seventies. Sort of makes their protests concerning international protocol a little empty now doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 And what's your plan for stopping them from getting it? For starters, I'd restore the sanctions we had placed on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 For starters, I'd restore the sanctions we had placed on them. Unilaterally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 For starters, I'd restore the sanctions we had placed on them. what sanctions have we lifted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Nothing wrong with having honest differences between each other, I think it's fair to say that the president hasn't earned the trust of most people in the country in regards to being able to cut a good deal, having said that, the letter was politically clumsy to say the least. I don't believe it's right to attempt to publicly undercut a sitting president on the world stage when he's trying to craft a deal no matter how much you may disagree with him. There were other channels that could have been used to get this message across and now as a result they look like a bunch of goof balls who probably have lost support of Democrats that would have been inclined to support the R's opposition to the lifting of sanctions until a more palatable deal could have been struck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted March 13, 2015 Author Share Posted March 13, 2015 Nothing wrong with having honest differences between each other, I think it's fair to say that the president hasn't earned the trust of most people in the country in regards to being able to cut a good deal, having said that, the letter was politically clumsy to say the least. I don't believe it's right to attempt to publicly undercut a sitting president on the world stage when he's trying to craft a deal no matter how much you may disagree with him. There were other channels that could have been used to get this message across and now as a result they look like a bunch of goof balls who probably have lost support of Democrats that would have been inclined to support the R's opposition to the lifting of sanctions until a more palatable deal could have been struck. Russia is going to have a parallel system to SWIFT come online in May, China in October, how do you think that will effect US/EU ability to impose sanctions on Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Russia is going to have a parallel system to SWIFT come online in May, China in October, how do you think that will effect US/EU ability to impose sanctions on Iran. It will effect it. Unfortunately, I think they are going to have nuclear capabilities and it's just a matter of time. Having said that, I think the only real shot there is to stopping them is if there is some sort of revolution that empowers the more moderate forces to take control, which in that case there could be a shot at stopping them. And I think one of the best ways to help incite a revolution is through economic pain. Not saying it's likely, just in my view the best strategy. Edited March 13, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Reuters has broken an important story on the attempt to convert President Obama’s deal in process with Iran from an executive agreement into some compulsory form of international law Reuters reports: Major world powers have begun talks about a United Nations Security Council resolution to lift U.N. sanctions on Iran if a nuclear agreement is struck with Tehran, a step that could make it harder for the U.S. Congress to undo a deal, Western officials said. The talks between Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States — the five permanent members of the Security Council — plus Germany and Iran, are taking place ahead of difficult negotiations that resume next week over constricting Iran’s nuclear ability. Some eight U.N. resolutions – four of them imposing sanctions – ban Iran from uranium enrichment and other sensitive atomic work and bar it from buying and selling atomic technology and anything linked to ballistic missiles. There is also a U.N. arms embargo. Iran sees their removal as crucial as U.N. measures are a legal basis for more stringent U.S. and European Union measures to be enforced. The U.S. and EU often cite violations of the U.N. ban on enrichment and other sensitive nuclear work as justification for imposing additional penalties on Iran. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry told Congress on Wednesday that an Iran nuclear deal would not be legally binding, meaning future U.S. presidents could decide not to implement it. That point was emphasized in an open letter by 47 Republican senators sent on Monday to Iran’s leaders asserting any deal could be discarded once President Barack Obama leaves office in January 2017. But a Security Council resolution on a nuclear deal with Iran could be legally binding, say Western diplomatic officials. That could complicate and possibly undercut future attempts by Republicans in Washington to unravel an agreement. Can an executive agreement of limited constitutional status under American law be converted into something higher by the United Nations? I wouldn't think so.................... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Get ready for the Free-dumb fries http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/european-allies-join-in-criticism-of-republican-letter-to-iran/2015/03/12/9469148e-c8e7-11e4-aa1a-86135599fb0f_story.html?hpid=z1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 As if the German's have the balls to stand up to anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts