Iran Nuclear Deal Reached

[IDBillzFan]

So Obama gets Mikurski to close her final term in the Senate by giving Barry the cover to veto the pending loss of an Iran deal so embarrassingly bad that we actually have to let Iran conduct their own inspections.

 

Probably the most interesting part about this deal is that is it overwhelmingly disliked by a large majority of Americans, and in particular by our closest ally in the ME and somehow...remarkably...Barry thinks this is a win for him.

 

This is what happens when your entire career is built on showing up and looking busy.

[B-Man]

Hold the vote anyway............make him veto it.

 

The treaty has a (bipartisan) majority vote against it in both the Senate and in the House.

 

The fact that he scraped up the 34th vote to block a veto is really a typical Obama victory

 

 

Well the dems own it now.

[Who is Yuri?]

Hold the vote anyway............make him veto it.

 

The treaty has a (bipartisan) majority vote against it in both the Senate and in the House.

 

The fact that he scraped up the 34th vote to block a veto is really a typical Obama victory

 

 

Well the dems own it now.

 

Not only do we own it, we're also celebrating it.

 

Now maybe Iran can throw their Sunni weight around in their neighbor state Iraq.

 

That's a load off of our US shoulders. I'll be giving them a high five, WWF style for stepping into the battle for real at this time.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Franz Kafka

[Keukasmallies]

 

Not only do we own it, we're also celebrating it.

 

Now maybe Iran can throw their Sunni weight around in their neighbor state Iraq.

 

That's a load off of our US shoulders. I'll be giving them a high five, WWF style for stepping into the battle for real at this time.

 

Wow, that's just a super approach to policy in the Middle East. I give it about eighteen to twenty-four months before we're chewing our nails to the quick wondering how we could have ever gotten into bed with our most dedicated enemy in the region. Oh look, we're cheering another sect v. sect war in the Middle East.

 

POTUS couldn't design foreign policy for Gilligan's Island.

[B-Man]

THE DEMOCRATS NOW OWN IRAN. THEY’LL SOON WISH THEY DIDN’T, Jonathan S. Tobin writes at Commentary:

 

Obama

got his deal despite the opposition of the majority of Congress and the American people. But the Democratic Party now gets the responsibility for Iranian terror and hate.

 

By

making Iran a partisan issue in this manner, Obama saddled his party with the blame for everything that will happen in the coming years. Munich analogies are often inappropriate but when Rep. Patrick Murphy (the likely Democratic nominee for the Senate seat Marco Rubio is vacating next year)

said the deal gives us “peace in our time,”

his channeling of Neville Chamberlain was no ordinary gaffe. In the years to come when Obama is retired and Iran uses the deal to make new mischief and atrocities, Democrats may regret giving in to the president’s pressure. But, like the appeasers of the 1930s, the legacy of the pro-Iran deal Democrats is now set in stone.

 

 

Nonsense — look at how it was for the Democrats and their operatives with bylines to make Iraq an entirely GOP issue only a few years after calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein themselves:

 

https://youtu.be/N5p-qIq32m8

[Who is Yuri?]

 

Wow, that's just a super approach to policy in the Middle East. I give it about eighteen to twenty-four months before we're chewing our nails to the quick wondering how we could have ever gotten into bed with our most dedicated enemy in the region. Oh look, we're cheering another sect v. sect war in the Middle East.

 

POTUS couldn't design foreign policy for Gilligan's Island.

 

I would rather cheer from the sidelines, halfway around the world, for our new powerful ally, Iran, than send troops into a quagmire that we know nothing about and are resented for even participating in.

 

There is zero strategic advantage to our engagement in Iraq, and it is not advantageous to prevent the Saudis and Iranians from solving the issue on their own. We have enough oil, and should be looking past fossil fuels anyway. I actually think that Iran does have peaceful nuclear ambitions. We think that we're on the cusp of nuclear fusion, but any other country that has an interest in such science gets deemed the enemy. Examples are Russia, Iran, Great Britain, France, Mexico.

 

I am for the United States having the biggest and best military in the world. No one else will try to challenge us, because it would be too expensive. It's a major tax burden, but it has it's advantages also. We are basically stuck, maintaining the peace.

 

I think that we're pretty powerful as it is, and that we don't need to go instigating new battles in Iran, Poland (e.g.), or the Ukraine (e.g.). For those two former Soviet Bloc countries, try to put yourself in Russian shoes. If they sidled up to Mexico or Cuba, we'd go apeshit, and be on the verge of mutual destruction. So don't feel like you need to mingle in Polish or Ukranian affairs haphazardly. You're not calling a bluff. The Russian do actually have some trump cards to play, if you force their hand.

[3rdnlng]

Not only do we own it, we're also celebrating it.

 

Now maybe Iran can throw their Sunni weight around in their neighbor state Iraq.

 

That's a load off of our US shoulders. I'll be giving them a high five, WWF style for stepping into the battle for real at this time.

Do you know anything about the Middle East?

[Who is Yuri?]

Do you know anything about the Middle East?

 

Yes. But Iranians are Shia.

Edited September 3, 2015 by Franz Kafka

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Yes. But Iranians are Shia.

Create more power vacuums for others, nearly all bad actors, to fill. End sanctions on those whose stated goals include the destruction of our country. Irreversibly harm our ability to protect our economic interests in the now, citing technologies that don't exist. Abandon our allies, Sycophants cheering their eminent distress.

 

Yeah. That's just golden, ponyboy.

[3rdnlng]

Yes. But Iranians are Shia.

So why would they be throwing their Sunni weight around?

[truth on hold]

Create more power vacuums for others, nearly all bad actors, to fill. End sanctions on those whose stated goals include the destruction of our country. Irreversibly harm our ability to protect our economic interests in the now, citing technologies that don't exist. Abandon our allies, Sycophants cheering their eminent distress.

 

Yeah. That's just golden, ponyboy.

dont worry man, our "allies" who are the biggest supporters of aggression and terror in the region, and cause us nothing but trouble, will be getting even more of our confiscated tax dollars as part of the deal

 

Kerry Promises Israel, Saudis Money In Wake of Iran Nuclear Deal

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/kerry-promises-israel-saudis-money-in-wake-of-iran-nuclear-deal/

Edited September 3, 2015 by JTSP

[Tiberius]

All that money that was spent to try and create outrage over the deal seems to have fizzled.

[Who is Yuri?]

Create more power vacuums for others, nearly all bad actors, to fill. End sanctions on those whose stated goals include the destruction of our country. Irreversibly harm our ability to protect our economic interests in the now, citing technologies that don't exist. Abandon our allies, Sycophants cheering their eminent distress.

 

Yeah. That's just golden, ponyboy.

 

Iran's stated goals (down with america, etc.) are based upon the unfinished business that they have with us. Iran nationalized their oil industry. That resulted in a CIA sponsered coup in the '50's so that the war-torn British would get the imperial cut of oil proceeds that they were used to. The anger at America dates back to a time when they voted for a leader, for once, he called the nations oil their own, and we deposed him to help out the British. That's what they're thinking. There's some depth to it.

 

On the other end, we don't have compelling reasons to hate Iran. If you think of Iran's neighbors, from Iran's perspective, the way that we think of our own neighbors, you'd understand Iran's antipathy toward us. In other words, if you put yourself in Iran's shoes, our assertive involvement in the Middle East would be threatening. Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil.

[/dev/null]

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/dnc-leader-wasserman-schultz-is-15th-jewish-democrat-to-stand-with-iran-back-nuclear-deal-video/

[3rdnlng]

 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/09/dnc-leader-wasserman-schultz-is-15th-jewish-democrat-to-stand-with-iran-back-nuclear-deal-video/

Where is she going to "tow" the line to? It's "toe" the line.

[/dev/null]

Where is she going to "tow" the line to? It's "toe" the line.

[Who is Yuri?]

I did a little internet sleuthing on this Iran deal controversy. I don't see any merit in the argument that this deal "gives Iran a nuclear bomb," or "makes it easier" for them to make a bomb.

 

Here is an example of the deal explained. I'm working on the impression that most of us haven't and don't plan to read the actual deal in its entirety.

 

To me, it seems like Iran was a lot closer to having a bomb when this deal was made, than Iran will be when this deal goes into effect.

 

If anything, their continued enrichment of Uranium, despite sanctions, put the rest of the world in a tough spot. Sanctions weren't working in the way that was intended. Sanctions seemed to motivate them further to create a nuclear weapon. At that point, we made the most out of a bad situation, and may have averted catastrophe.

 

In the long run, this deal saves American lives. Under sanctions, Iran was much closer to having a bomb, than they will be with reduced capacity, and inspections. As was noted above, Russia and China would have lifted sanctions anyway. If Iran made a bomb, then what? Go to war, or let them have a bomb? This deal is a better alternative than either of those options.

[3rdnlng]

I did a little internet sleuthing on this Iran deal controversy. I don't see any merit in the argument that this deal "gives Iran a nuclear bomb," or "makes it easier" for them to make a bomb.

 

Here is an example of the deal explained. I'm working on the impression that most of us haven't and don't plan to read the actual deal in its entirety.

 

To me, it seems like Iran was a lot closer to having a bomb when this deal was made, than Iran will be when this deal goes into effect.

 

If anything, their continued enrichment of Uranium, despite sanctions, put the rest of the world in a tough spot. Sanctions weren't working in the way that was intended. Sanctions seemed to motivate them further to create a nuclear weapon. At that point, we made the most out of a bad situation, and may have averted catastrophe.

 

In the long run, this deal saves American lives. Under sanctions, Iran was much closer to having a bomb, than they will be with reduced capacity, and inspections. As was noted above, Russia and China would have lifted sanctions anyway. If Iran made a bomb, then what? Go to war, or let them have a bomb? This deal is a better alternative than either of those options.

I had a nice, long reasoned response all typed out and it got lost somewhere in cyberspace. The crux of the matter is this deal is not acceptable and will eventually put the U.S. in a position of having to bomb Iran's facilities. Allowing them more time means it will be just that more difficult to destroy their capabilities. Obama won't be president but the person that is will have to make a Harry Truman decision regarding the threat of those facilities coupled with the thought process of 8th century "leaders". Thanks Obama.

[Who is Yuri?]

I had a nice, long reasoned response all typed out and it got lost somewhere in cyberspace. The crux of the matter is this deal is not acceptable and will eventually put the U.S. in a position of having to bomb Iran's facilities. Allowing them more time means it will be just that more difficult to destroy their capabilities. Obama won't be president but the person that is will have to make a Harry Truman decision regarding the threat of those facilities coupled with the thought process of 8th century "leaders". Thanks Obama.

OK. I've had that cyberspace thing happen, and it is frustrating.

 

I'll hold off responding to what you ended up writing, and give you time to clarify. Did you think we should have just dropped an A-bomb on Iran, problem solved?

[3rdnlng]

OK. I've had that cyberspace thing happen, and it is frustrating.

 

I'll hold off responding to what you ended up writing, and give you time to clarify. Did you think we should have just dropped an A-bomb on Iran, problem solved?

Not at all. I would have preferred keeping the sanctions going (which I believe was possible including Russia and China) if we hadn't have been so naive. This administration made an agreement that put us in a no win situation. We've lost the sanctions since everybody basically has to be on board. Obama's policies have put us in a position of either letting these nuts have a nuclear bomb or us destroying their facilities with a lot of fire power or a tactical nuclear bomb or two. The second to the last thing I want to do is drop any kind of bomb on Iran, but the last thing I want to do is to have them nuke Israel or the U.S.

 

I'm a reasonable guy who is conservative, but mainly fiscally conservative. I'm sort of traditional in that I truly believe that a marriage should be officially between members of the human opposite sex, but don't have a problem with Sue and Sue or Bob and Bob getting a civil union and having spousal benefits. I'm leary of going down the slippery slope though. I guess I'm more like Ike.