IDBillzFan Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 You know those secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA that President Obama says are totally cool but won’t let Congress see? So let me get this right: the UN has agreed that Iran will be the ones conducting the inspections on Iran's nuclear capabilities? I'm starting to think this whole Sally Fields Foreign Policy thing is not working so well.
Taro T Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 So let me get this right: the UN has agreed that Iran will be the ones conducting the inspections on Iran's nuclear capabilities? I'm starting to think this whole Sally Fields Foreign Policy thing is not working so well. How could anyone be opposed? Trust AND verify. That's even firmer than President Reagan's trust BUT verify.
Magox Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 but, but you have to support the deal, doesn't matter what's in the deal. If you oppose it, you want war and you find common cause with the Ayatollah.
DC Tom Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 You know those secret side deals between Iran and the IAEA that President Obama says are totally cool but won’t let Congress see? Yeah … not exactly: From the AP: No wonder Obama and the IAEA want Congress out of the loop: Because self-inspection and the honor system worked so well for Hillary's email...
B-Man Posted August 19, 2015 Posted August 19, 2015 Because self-inspection and the honor system worked so well for Hillary's email... UN to Iran: "Have you sanitized the Parchin nuclear site?" Iran: "What, like with a cloth or something?" .
Keukasmallies Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 We need to keep this thread going if at all possible; it's just so flexible. Think how easy it will be to simply change the title by adding a B to the last word, changing Reached to Breached, and we just keep on toting up those errors made by SecSt and POTUS. One way or 'nother, POTUS will shuck and jive the agreement into place; that will be immediately followed by Iran trampling most of its provisions, but we'll have this thread in place and ready for the next rounds of attack posts.
truth on hold Posted August 21, 2015 Posted August 21, 2015 Do Iranian leaders intend to develop nuclear weapons today? We can decide for ourselves how credible their denials are, but that they had such intentions in the past is beyond question. After all, it was asserted openly on the highest authority and foreign journalists were informed that Iran would develop nuclear weapons certainly, and sooner than one thinks. The father of Irans nuclear energy program and former head of Irans Atomic Energy Organization was confident that the leaderships plan was to build a nuclear bomb. The CIA also reported that it had no doubt Iran would develop nuclear weapons if neighboring countries did (as they have). All of this was, of course, under the Shah, the highest authority just quoted and at a time when top U.S. officialsDick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Henry Kissinger, among otherswere urging him to proceed with his nuclear programs and pressuring universities to accommodate these efforts. Under such pressures, my own university, MIT, made a deal with the Shah to admit Iranian students to the nuclear engineering program in return for grants he offered and over the strong objections of the student body, but with comparably strong faculty support (in a meeting that older faculty will doubtless remember well). Asked later why he supported such programs under the Shah but opposed them more recently, Kissinger responded honestly that Iran was an ally then. http://inthesetimes.com/article/18330/iran-is-not-the-gravest-threat-to-world-peace
truth on hold Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Britain Reopens Its Embassy in Tehran TEHRAN (Reuters) - Britain reopened its embassy in Tehran on Sunday, a striking signal of how Western ties with Iran have thawed since protesters stormed the compound nearly four years ago. Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond watched the British flag being raised in the garden of the opulent 19th century building while the national anthem played. Accompanying Hammond was a small group of business leaders, including representatives from Royal Dutch Shell, energy and mining services company Amec Foster Wheeler and Scottish industrial engineering firm Weir Group. http://www.newsweek.com/britain-reopens-tehran-embassy-365277 Edited August 24, 2015 by JTSP
Magox Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 For Democrats, that voted for this deal, there will be consequences.
GG Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) For Democrats, that voted for this deal, there will be consequences. Peace in our lifetime? Edited August 24, 2015 by GG
Tiberius Posted August 24, 2015 Author Posted August 24, 2015 For Democrats, that voted for this deal, there will be consequences. Leadership has its costs. Plus, by election time people won't remember if the nuclear deal was between us and Iran, or Russia and China. Even if the Israel lobby pours billions and billions into a lost cause, can't see this being the main issue in next election
Magox Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 Leadership has its costs. Plus, by election time people won't remember if the nuclear deal was between us and Iran, or Russia and China. Even if the Israel lobby pours billions and billions into a lost cause, can't see this being the main issue in next election What you call leadership, others call caving into the demands of some bad characters. It won't be forgotten and although it may not be the determining factor, it will be a factor none the less. In regards to what is happening around the world, there is more interest for Geo Politics and foreign policy than at any other time since the 2004 elections. I do see this election having a strong foreign policy foot print, and Iran will be front and center.
IDBillzFan Posted August 24, 2015 Posted August 24, 2015 For Democrats, that voted for this deal, there will be consequences. I had no idea the numbers were that bad, but I'm heartened that so many people genuinely see it for the disaster that it is. I expect the left to allow it be vetoed, and then you'll have a horribly-designed social program and horribly-designed foreign policy firmly and exclusively in the Democrat score box. The only thing missing from their holster is an economic meltdown. Wait. What?
B-Man Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 All these Democratic racists coming out against Obama, tsk tsk… Via The Tower: A s ixth Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Brendan Boyle (D – Pa.) from the Philadelphia area, announced his opposition to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in an op-ed published Sunday in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Citing his experience as a member of the committee and its Middle East subcommittee, Boyle expressed three main concerns that led him to oppose the nuclear agreement with Iran. First, this agreement will inject at least $56 billion into the Iranian regime. This is a massive sum for a country with a gross domestic product of $400 billion. … Second, the agreement fails to include “anytime, anyplace” inspections. In fact, it gives Iran up to 24 days’ notice before inspections. The administration is correct when it points out that 24 days is not enough time for Iran to cover up a full-blown nuclear program. More at the link: Democrats, do you feel lucky (about the Iran deal)? by David Gertsman A number of stories have been reported since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), as the nuclear deal with Iran is known, that raise serious questions about its effectiveness to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and even about whether or not it will stop a war. More at the link:
IDBillzFan Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Obama announces today that those who disagree with him on Iran are "the crazies." I swear it's like being led by a third grader. Grow up, you phucking nutbag. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/obama-calls-opponents-of-iran-deal-the-crazies-121701.html?hp=rc1_4
....lybob Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/why-republicans-reject-the-iran-deal-and-all-diplomacy.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article
GG Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/26/opinion/why-republicans-reject-the-iran-deal-and-all-diplomacy.html?&moduleDetail=section-news-0&action=click&contentCollection=Opinion®ion=Footer&module=MoreInSection&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&pgtype=article Figures that you would link an article that discusses history but is devoid of context of why those negotiations made sense at the time, and why they all differ from the current Iran deal.
B-Man Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Khobar Towers Bombing Suspect Captured — See if You Can Spot the Magic Words The Saudis are claiming to have arrested the “mastermind” of the Khobar Towers bombing, the 1996 terror attack that killed 19 Americans. Please note the key phrase in the New York Times report of the arrest: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/world/middleeast/saudia-arabia-arrests-suspect-khobar-towers-bombing.html?_r=0 Saudi Arabia has arrested the accused mastermind of a 1996 bombing that killed 19 American military personnel, a Saudi-owned pan-Arab newspaper reported on Wednesday, citing unnamed officials. The suspect, Ahmed al-Mughassil, was identified in an American federal indictment as a senior leader of an Iranian-backed militant group, Hezbollah al-Hijaz, that sought to kill American military personnel in the Persian Gulf. And: Mr. Mughassil is believed to have been living in Beirut since the attack, under the protection of Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese group. The newspaper, Asharq al-Awsat, reported that he had been arrested in Beirut and handed over to the Saudi authorities; it gave no further explanation. Yes, “Iranian-backed.” We are on the verge of granting Iran the world’s largest jihadist stimulus package in the form of a ”deal” that not only lifts sanctions but also grants Iran access to international arms markets, and we’re reminded once again that Iran is our enemy. Moreover, its sins do not lie only the past. Hezbollah has been sheltering a wanted terrorist for almost two full decades. Had Iran sought any kind of meaningful peace with the U.S., they could have forced Hezbollah to hand over al-Mughassil at any time. It chose not to. The timing for the Obama administration is . . . awkward:Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner
B-Man Posted August 30, 2015 Posted August 30, 2015 Iranian Pres Doesn’t Want Nuclear Deal Binding On Iran :Why do Dems support a deal that binds the U.S. but makes Iran’s commitments voluntary? In a press conference yesterday, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said that he didn’t want the Iranian legislature to approve the nuclear deal (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) the Associated Press reported Saturday. Rouhani told a news conference that the deal was a political understanding reached with the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany, not a pact requiring parliamentary approval. The deal also says Iran would implement the terms voluntarily, he said. … “If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is sent to (and passed by) parliament, it will create an obligation for the government . it will mean the president, who has not signed it so far, will have to sign it,” Rouhani said. “Why should we place an unnecessary legal restriction on the Iranian people?” … The president said a parliamentary vote would benefit the U.S. and its allies, not Iran. Similarly, Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) reported, “President Rouhani underlined that the submission of the JCPOA to the Parliament would mean that the president would have to sign the JCPOA, an extra legal commitment that the administration has already avoided.” So Iran doesn’t want to be bound legally by the JCPOA. (more…)
B-Man Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Lots of "warmongering racists" out there I guess.................... Q Poll: Americans OPPOSE Iran nuke deal by more than 2-1 Opposition is strong across age, gender and race, and even Democrats can’t muster a majority in support A rejection of the nuclear deal could lead to radicalism in Iran. AND HOW WOULD WE BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE....................
Recommended Posts