Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
One thing for sure always looking for something to justify opposition to President Obama to try to say our opposition was well founded.
The International Atomic Energy Agency does have several side agreement with Iran. There is nothing new here. It is standard operating procedure for them. If you can't trust the IAEA, who can you trust?
How were these secret agreements discovered? Tom Cotton asked IAEA, if they had private arrangements with Iran. They answered yes. Well, that was a well hidden secret! If the side arrangements were such a big deal, why not answer no? It is not like they didn't know that Tom Cotton was the author of the insane letter that he and 46 of his buddies sent to Iran before the deal was finalized.
What is the big deal with Iran military leader going to Russia? If Congress blows up this deal, he is going to live in Russia.
You have no idea at all that Iran will get an atomic bomb. When? IAEA inspectors being in Iran, is going to speed up Iran's path to the bomb? What world do you come from? Dispute all the crying, Congress knows that no American president is going to allow Iran to get an nuclear bomb. There is nothing stopping us from bombing the nuclear sites into the stone age. Breaking a deal goes both ways.
An arms race in the Middle East? Is there any country that Iran can't attack right now besides Israel? Why would they have to wait to get a nuclear weapon to attack?
The deal between P5 PLUS ONE addressed stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE WERE THE ONLY ONES IN THE DEAL WITH IRAN? All the other countries are so stupid that only the US knows what is acceptable, and what is not. My, do we think a lot of ourselves!
Since you can read me like a book, what web sites am I parroting? Who the hell are you trying to sell that this isn't a partisan issue? How many Democrats signed Tom Cotton's letter to Iran. That would be none. There is one thing for damn sure 47 Republicans aren't going to vote for the agreement. This can't be any more partisan.
Some of these clowns are saying President Obama is doing this to enhance his legacy. This agreement can go either way. If they are saying it is going to enhance his legacy, they have to think that this is a good agreement. That is simple logic. Chew on that for awhile.
|
You have attempted to answer a lot of questions in your post. It's always good to hear the other side of the debate and for that reason I appreciate your post. I wonder if you could answer one more question, as this is one that I just don't understand. Why do you think the release of hostages was not part of the deal? I'm more concerned now about what will happen to these hostages if this thing turns ugly down the road. Why not get them out beforehand, instead of keeping us all on the edge of our seats? It seems as if that was the least we could have demanded and yet we are not even getting that as part of the deal. This whole thing just felt more like a bloodletting to me rather than a negotiation and that's why I have not been for it....... JMHO. But thanks for articulating your side of the story. Comforting at least to hear some opposition without any name calling from either side
