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.
|
First of all, when I have said I can "read you like a book" it always revolved around your wisecracks and not a reply of any substance.
It appears that this might be of substance (ignoring the "chew on that awhile", etc) and for you to post this reply is heartening and I think great. This is what this forum is supposed to be about; the exchange of ideas, and I am proud of you,
I never objected to anything but two things on the secret deals.
First, the statements made to the public that ALL agreements would be turned over to congress without mentioning these secret deals was disingenious at best. Of course the USA government KNEW their was a side agreement and it just seems a bit phone not so say that there was one. The fact that congress needed to ask an outside body bothers me a bit.
On the secret deals, I think someone besides Wendy Sherman (who were told had a "glimpse" of them) that someone in greater authority (President, Secy of State, etc) should know what is in them. They center on Iran's military and what has been an ongoing discussion on what is really happening. The IAEA has had problems with this SPECIFIC site over years in trying to keep Iran in line, and that alone should warrant extra care. The track record of the iAEA with Iran is spotty at best and thus becomes an issue. That is not impugning the IAEA, but the fact that Iran has conned them in the past and thus it should be an issue in the future.
For me, the big deal about Iran military leader going to Russia is quite simple. IT
is against INTERNATIONAL LAW as the UN forbid him from doing just that. Not a great way to begin an era of trust. They went in secretly, thus THEY KNEW THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW. I think that speaks to the trust we should NOT have in this country.
Obviously, or let me say I do not know, but it appears that they went to Russia looking for more ICBM's because that is what they were working on before the deal. Maybe not you, but that fact give me pause.
Two things on your statement concerning other countries in getting weapons of mass destruction.
I was under the impression that one of the purposes of the IRAN agreement was to insure the non proliferation of nuclear weapons. As a result of this deal, already Saudi Arabia announced plans to begin the process to get it done before they KNOW Iran will have theirs.
I am not sure on the second thing. They do not need to wait for a nuclear weapon to attack as you say, but since they have been saying for many years they believe in the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of both the USA and Israel, they are not looking for a "war" but total and complete annihilation.
As to the future of Iran getting the weapon. The entire idea of all the sanctions was to not allow them in anyway at anytime. This deal allows that they CAN have them but under guidelines relative to time. Thus THEY WILL HAVE THEM and it is just a matter of time. That is the essence of the deal by the way.
As to the to the other countries, please read some foreign press. For example, the French prime minister is on record as saying he did not think the deal was strong enough and he was pressured into the agreement. This was a US run deal and if you look at the other parties, especially Russia, has so much to gain. Russia will be supplying arms and getting oil and all others want Iran as a trade partner.
Finally, while you at least for once are addressing real issues and that is great your attack mode has not changed. You were obviously angry and as to what sites you read, I have no idea. BUT, I assume you are okay with POLITICAL ACTIVIST groups being involved in pressuring Democrats ???? And while not accusing you because did not check the details, but much of what you say is also a talking point of MOVEON
But I have "chewed on that" did not return your "clown" adjective which you used and your mentioning of Tom Cotton, as one of your allies does a lot tells me a lot.
But I WOULD prefer not to ruin a great post by you in making some good points and it is appreciated. Lot better than the one liners as it will make people take notice and read and investigate.
Thank you and keep it up.