IDBillzFan Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 And you say all this having read the agreement yourself, correct? The only way he read the deal was if it was published in Highlights or Tiger Beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 (edited) And you say all this having read the agreement yourself, correct? Republicans admitted that they were against the deal before they read it (regardless of the merits of the deal that says they were going to be against it no matter what). Personally I read the deal and outside of Iran being able to sell arms after 4-6 years I can't find anything too objectionable or anything the West gave up. Edited August 12, 2015 by billsfan89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Republicans admitted that they were against the deal before they read it (regardless of the merits of the deal that says they were going to be against it no matter what). Personally I read the deal and outside of Iran being able to sell arms after 4-6 years I can't find anything too objectionable or anything the West gave up. link ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 link ? It's Jon Oliver but at about 2:45 there is a clip of Lindsey Graham criticizing the deal to a reporter on CNN the CNN reporter says that he hasn't read the deal, he admits that he hasn't There are others on record saying similar things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Jon Oliver is your source? Good !@#$ing grief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Jon Oliver is your source? Good !@#$ing grief. He is not, it's the video clip he shows in the video. Lindsey Graham is shown on CNN admitting he hadn't read the deal before criticizing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 1) Israel is afraid it will allow Iran to better fund Hezbollah and Hamas better since the sanctions will be lifted. 2) Obama's administration made the deal so Republicans hate it...knee jerk Save yourself the time and just type Obama's Black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Republicans admitted that they were against the deal before they read it (regardless of the merits of the deal that says they were going to be against it no matter what). Your link simply shows a Senator bloviating on the parts of the bill that he had heard about, but not read yet. Not that they were against the deal no matter what as you are so quick to assume. That is your bias showing. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted August 13, 2015 Author Share Posted August 13, 2015 Your link simply shows a Senator bloviating on the parts of the bill that he had heard about, but not read yet. Not that they were against the deal no matter what as you are so quick to assume. That is your bias showing. . HIS bias? Good grief, how big of a mortgage did you take out on that glass house?? His clip of Lindsey is a great example of Republican knee jerk mindless obstructionism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 It's Jon Oliver but at about 2:45 there is a clip of Lindsey Graham criticizing the deal to a reporter on CNN the CNN reporter says that he hasn't read the deal, he admits that he hasn't There are others on record saying similar things. Lindsey Graham is a Republican. You said Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Lindsey Graham is a Republican. You said Republicans. Lindsey Graham is a Republican like Bernie Sanders is a Democrat. His clip of Lindsey is a great example of Republican knee jerk mindless obstructionism I see your overlords are giving you bigger words to use. Do you get paid more for using words you don't understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 His clip of Lindsey is a great example of Republican knee jerk mindless obstructionism Why? Does it contain specifics and details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Republicans admitted that they were against the deal before they read it (regardless of the merits of the deal that says they were going to be against it no matter what). Personally I read the deal and outside of Iran being able to sell arms after 4-6 years I can't find anything too objectionable or anything the West gave up. Why is that a hard thing to believe? The draft wasn't available for Legislative to see. The outline of the deal would lift sanctions off a rogue regime that's caused havoc in the region for four decades. So no matter the details of the nuclear provisions, the purse strings will be lifted and controls ended for the party that controls power in the country and its proxies. What has Iran done to earn the goodwill of the remaining (for now) global superpower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Tell you what gents, and you that might be females or want to be, I read an article from Kirsten Gillibrand (dem Senator) who is reluctantly going to vote for the deal, and then I read one from Charles Krauthammer who I generally agree with who hates the deal. They both had excellent points. I'm a little late in making myself really informed on this subject. I had previously just taken the position of phuck Iran. Does anyone have a link to the real proposed treaty? Although I can't imagine any treaty coming from Obama & Kerry being in our favor, but I'm willing to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Who is Yuri? Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I'd be OK if Iran did some more heavy lifting in Iraq. I never bought the whole Axis of Evil thing. I see Iran as a potential ally that's still pissed off that Eisenhower unleashed a CIA catalyzed coup on their first democratically elected government back in '53. The US has made a lot of enemies through the CIA's involvement. My plan in Iraq would be to just keep the Iranians, and Saudis from killing each other, but more or less, let them reform Iraq themselves, however they see fit. We're getting in the way, atm. What difference does it make if it's the Iranians or Saudis or Americans fight ISIS? To me, I'd rather it were them, because they'd be better at it, have more incentive, and be more committed to the cause. Let them shape their own region and if we can turn that into alliances, the nuclear thing is less of a threat. That said, I think the new compromise is a graceful way of postponing Iran's nuclear ambitions. All we are saying, is "give peace a chance." (Oh, I know you're going to hate me for that last sentence) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 What has Iran done to earn the goodwill of the remaining (for now) global superpower? The public chants of 'death to America' and 'death to Israel' show that they at least have a worldview instead of just a singular hatred of America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 I'd be OK if Iran did some more heavy lifting in Iraq. I never bought the whole Axis of Evil thing. I see Iran as a potential ally that's still pissed off that Eisenhower unleashed a CIA catalyzed coup on their first democratically elected government back in '53. The US has made a lot of enemies through the CIA's involvement. My plan in Iraq would be to just keep the Iranians, and Saudis from killing each other, but more or less, let them reform Iraq themselves, however they see fit. We're getting in the way, atm. What difference does it make if it's the Iranians or Saudis or Americans fight ISIS? To me, I'd rather it were them, because they'd be better at it, have more incentive, and be more committed to the cause. Let them shape their own region and if we can turn that into alliances, the nuclear thing is less of a threat. That said, I think the new compromise is a graceful way of postponing Iran's nuclear ambitions. All we are saying, is "give peace a chance." (Oh, I know you're going to hate me for that last sentence) israelis and saudis have a lot of influence in Washington so we're forced fed the notion they're allies. But you're right, our real natural ally is shiite iran in the fight against global jihadism, which is almost exclusively a sunni led movenent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Your link simply shows a Senator bloviating on the parts of the bill that he had heard about, but not read yet. Not that they were against the deal no matter what as you are so quick to assume. That is your bias showing. . I fail to see that. He said that this is a bad deal and that you have created the worst possible outcome. That seems like a pretty wholistic evaulation to me. That's not "I don't like X provision in said deal". Everyone has their bias, I do my best to isolate a situation and just look at the outcomes. A lot of Republicans came out against this deal without reading it. http://bigstory.ap.org/article/9ca4c057cc0946bda2be9e7aa72aa90c/analysis-gop-against-iran-deal-or-without-reading-it In this article Scott Walker and Tom Cotton come out against the deal while it wasn't even released. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/2733353-155/milbank-republicans-trash-iran-deal-without This article also has more quotes from Republicans being against the deal without reading it. Of course some waiting till the deal was read and understood. Not saying that it was a blanket thought among Republicans. But rather that a significant segment of the Republican party didn't care about the actual fundamentals of the deal as it didn't matter. They had already decided to oppose it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Why is that a hard thing to believe? The draft wasn't available for Legislative to see. The outline of the deal would lift sanctions off a rogue regime that's caused havoc in the region for four decades. So no matter the details of the nuclear provisions, the purse strings will be lifted and controls ended for the party that controls power in the country and its proxies. What has Iran done to earn the goodwill of the remaining (for now) global superpower? Yes but if you reach a deal that prevents such a regime from acquiring nuclear weapons isn't that a good thing? The Iran money was their money. Should have just kept their money forever and caused dire economic conditions for a country directly for indefinately? Two thrids of Iran is friendly to the West younger generation. Perhaps we should try to win them over instead of waging acts of war against them? Of course Iran is not a democracy so getting rid of their establishment hardliners who are against American and Western interests is going to be hard. But making an external enemy for the government to rally against is not a good idea. Right now I see a deal that keeps that nation from being a nuclear power for the near future and shows an act of good faith to a population that could be swayed to be more Western friendly. I think it's about time America get out of the mess that is the Middle East. Let them figure it out. Israel can defend it's self and America is now an oil exporting nation so we don't need the oil. The policies in place haven't been working and it's about time we stopped wasting our money and our blood over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 13, 2015 Share Posted August 13, 2015 Yes but if you reach a deal that prevents such a regime from acquiring nuclear weapons isn't that a good thing? The Iran money was their money. Should have just kept their money forever and caused dire economic conditions for a country directly for indefinately? Two thrids of Iran is friendly to the West younger generation. Perhaps we should try to win them over instead of waging acts of war against them? Of course Iran is not a democracy so getting rid of their establishment hardliners who are against American and Western interests is going to be hard. But making an external enemy for the government to rally against is not a good idea. Right now I see a deal that keeps that nation from being a nuclear power for the near future and shows an act of good faith to a population that could be swayed to be more Western friendly. I think it's about time America get out of the mess that is the Middle East. Let them figure it out. Israel can defend it's self and America is now an oil exporting nation so we don't need the oil. The policies in place haven't been working and it's about time we stopped wasting our money and our blood over there. Rogue regimes never let a treaty stop it from accomplishing its true intentions. Soviets weren't truly interested in nuclear disarmament until they were bankrupted. Same with North Korea and the numerous deals put in place to stop them from getting a bomb. No one is saying that a deal with Iran shouldn't be struck. The main criticism is why do a deal now, with sanctions working and eroding the mullah's popular support. A smart strategy is to negotiate from strength when the Islamists are further weakened. You don't hand them a gift for doing nothing and then agreeing to a deal that doesn't have meaningful teeth to it even if they're caught out of compliance. So why the mad rush into a deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts