Iran agreement

[Guest]

I think in the end obama will use Iran to cast the final blow to the U S

[Guest]

I think in the end obama will use Iran to cast the final blow to the U S

I think Obama is waging strategic jihad against the US, and this is one way of doing it.

[Guest]

I wish the voices in your head would tell you how ridiculous you sound!

[Guest]

Once we have a Republican President and Congress in 2016, life in America will revert to the level of idyllic perfection we saw under previous Republicans. That's what the voices in my head told me.

[Guest]

TOTV has been amenable enough to allow political opinion to be discussed and you all show your appreciation with this drivel. Discuss topics, but leave this childish Talk to the playground. Let's discuss WHO can do WHAT to fix problems, not the past. Ggggggeeeeeeezzzzzz.

[Guest]

The fact is that Iran can cut and has cut better deals with Russia and China. We can rattle all the sabers we want. The final blow to America will be the result of our policy of intervention in the Middle East which got us into this quagmire. This is regardless of the religious affiliation (real or imagined) of the seated President.

[Guest]

The fact is that Iran can cut and has cut better deals with Russia and China. We can rattle all the sabers we want. The final blow to America will be the result of our policy of intervention in the Middle East which got us into this quagmire. This is regardless of the religious affiliation (real or imagined) of the seated President.

So please explain your policy solution... pull all US forces out of the Middle East, South Korea, Germany, and elsewhere? How would that work and, more importantly, what do you think would happen as a result? Would peace break out worldwide as a result?

[Guest]

Picture this. China has no armed forces in the Middle East. They have cut deals with Iraq and Iran for oil. Do some research on that. They deal with Russia and NK. They have not invested Armed Forces in any of those countries yet, they benefit from them. Ask a veteran of the war in Iraq what his perception of the Shiite and Sunni civil war is. Ask how much are the Iraqi's into the fight.
Even Dick Cheney was against going into Iraq after the First Gulf War. More American soldiers died from accidents and friendly fire than combat in that conflict.
My policy solution would be to examine the reality of what some of the most powerful other countries in the world do to achieve their goals. China got where it is today because the U.S.of A. had no problem shipping jobs, technology and $$$$ to them.
Of course we can't pull US Forces out of these other countries. They would lose billions in US financial aid and might start dealing with the communists! Oops! They already do!

[Guest]

Picture this. China has no armed forces in the Middle East. They have cut deals with Iraq and Iran for oil. Do some research on that. They deal with Russia and NK. They have not invested Armed Forces in any of those countries yet, they benefit from them. Ask a veteran of the war in Iraq what his perception of the Shiite and Sunni civil war is. Ask how much are the Iraqi's into the fight.
Even Dick Cheney was against going into Iraq after the First Gulf War. More American soldiers died from accidents and friendly fire than combat in that conflict.
My policy solution would be to examine the reality of what some of the most powerful other countries in the world do to achieve their goals. China got where it is today because the U.S.of A. had no problem shipping jobs, technology and $$$$ to them.
Of course we can't pull US Forces out of these other countries. They would lose billions in US financial aid and might start dealing with the communists! Oops! They already do!


First of all, you get credit for a very clever non-reply to my questions. Your last paragraph in particular, while cynical, is entertaining.

But, I don't think you have a real answer, and I suspect you know you don't. The Middle East is screwed up ... we can all agree on that. In a perfect world, I would be happy to just let the whole sorry lot shoot each other up and not have one American service member in the area. However, until that perfect world is reached (ie never) we are, like it or not, in a power politics game. The only criterion I have is what is in American's national interest, especially from a security perspective?. We need strong leadership to succeed and that is obviously missing at present. Even the best leaders will not always get it right, but the good ones will at least not screw something up even worse.

The best example we have of what happens when American power is withdrawn precipitously is the rise of ISIS when Obama blundered and, going against the advice of all his generals, pulled our troops out after Iraq was reasonably stabilized. He created a power vacuum, and ISIS filled it. Look also at Syria, and Libya. Crappy presidential eadership has created the refugee crisis in Italy, as another example, but no one connects the dots.

I'm an isolationist at heart, but am forced to be a realist, especially with the increasing ascendancy of Radical Islam, both Sunni and Shia. This is even more the case with the latter being allowed to developed a nuclear capability by our (spiritual Islamic) political leader.

Deep down, I truly believes Obama thinks it's "unfair" for us to have nukes and Iran not to. This is mixed with his "who are we to say they can't have them when we do" and related mental infirmities exhibited by the extreme Left wing ideology.

[Guest]

BUT we can be assured that Iran can be trusted.....

"(Reuters) - Britain has informed a United Nations sanctions panel of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms, according to a confidential report by the panel seen by Reuters.

"The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it 'is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran's Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)'," the Panel of Experts said in its annual report. The panel monitors Iran's compliance with the U.N. sanctions regime.

KEC is under U.N. Security Council sanctions while TESA is under U.S. and European Union sanctions due to their suspected links to banned Iranian nuclear activities.

Iran, which is has been under sanctions for years, has a long history of illicit nuclear procurement using front companies and other methods of skirting sanctions."

Exclusive: Britain told U.N. monitors of active Iran nuclear procurement - panel | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430)

This is today's news ! Wondering if it gets any play at all ?

I am also curious about feelings on Rubio wanting to insist that on ANY agreement, Iran would be required to recognize Israel as a state. Lots of Democrats are very upset at this, but is it not reasonable that if Iran is requiring immediate lifting of all UN sanctions, and promising that body such honesty and compliance, that they should recognize Israel who is a member of that body ? Do not have to love them, but when does someone stand up for the basics.

Allowing a member of the UN to publicly profess a wish for, and intent to destroy that nation.....well, it seems that rewarding that nation by allowing it to,procure the weapons to carry out that destroyal, NO MATTER THE TIME FRAME, is a bit...let's say hypocritical.

[Guest]

...

Allowing a member of the UN to publicly profess a wish for, and intent to destroy that nation.....well, it seems that rewarding that nation by allowing it to,procure the weapons to carry out that destroyal, NO MATTER THE TIME FRAME, is a bit...let's say hypocritical.


Absolutely correct! in fact, your making this point highlights just how ridiculous this whole "deal" with Iran is. If the country signing the agreement still publically claims it will destroy Israel, it's obviously a deal not worth signing.

It's like we're negotiating in some type of Twilight Zone alternative universe. American leadership used to employ common sense before negotiating hugely important deals like this one. Now, however, Obama and Kerry find nuance where only fools would seek to find it.

[Guest]

Will testosterone hurt my iPad? Please Hawks take a deep breath.

[Guest]

Will testosterone hurt my iPad? Please Hawks take a deep breath.

If the Kool-Aid hasn't, then the testosterone probably won't.:laugh:

[Guest]

Will testosterone hurt my iPad? Please Hawks take a deep breath.

If we're hawks, seems to me in the case of Iran, that makes you an ostrich.

[Guest]

First of all, you get credit for a very clever non-reply to my questions. Your last paragraph in particular, while cynical, is entertaining.

But, I don't think you have a real answer, and I suspect you know you don't. The Middle East is screwed up ... we can all agree on that. In a perfect world, I would be happy to just let the whole sorry lot shoot each other up and not have one American service member in the area. However, until that perfect world is reached (ie never) we are, like it or not, in a power politics game. The only criterion I have is what is in American's national interest, especially from a security perspective?. We need strong leadership to succeed and that is obviously missing at present. Even the best leaders will not always get it right, but the good ones will at least not screw something up even worse.

The best example we have of what happens when American power is withdrawn precipitously is the rise of ISIS when Obama blundered and, going against the advice of all his generals, pulled our troops out after Iraq was reasonably stabilized. He created a power vacuum, and ISIS filled it. Look also at Syria, and Libya. Crappy presidential eadership has created the refugee crisis in Italy, as another example, but no one connects the dots.

I'm an isolationist at heart, but am forced to be a realist, especially with the increasing ascendancy of Radical Islam, both Sunni and Shia. This is even more the case with the latter being allowed to developed a nuclear capability by our (spiritual Islamic) political leader.

Deep down, I truly believes Obama thinks it's "unfair" for us to have nukes and Iran not to. This is mixed with his "who are we to say they can't have them when we do" and related mental infirmities exhibited by the extreme Left wing ideology.
Because no one in the Republican or Democratic Party who is running for President has presented a plan for the Middle East, I'll presume we will vote for the next President based on past performance. Apparently my reference how the other powers in the world deal with the Middle East wasn't clear. China and Russia get the resources with no armed military there. In other words our foreign policy has cost us lives and billions and they get it all for free. They cut deals with Muslim countries without military intervention. Russia must have learned from their invasion of Afghanistan. They left because of our aid to Muslims like Bin Laden. Remember the Iran Iraq War. Who did we provide aid to then?
I think the danger in our conversations is that we believe political affiliation to one party or another gives the best answer to the Middle East crisis.

[Guest]

Because no one in the Republican or Democratic Party who is running for President has presented a plan for the Middle East, I'll presume we will vote for the next President based on past performance. Apparently my reference how the other powers in the world deal with the Middle East wasn't clear. China and Russia get the resources with no armed military there. In other words our foreign policy has cost us lives and billions and they get it all for free. They cut deals with Muslim countries without military intervention. Russia must have learned from their invasion of Afghanistan. They left because of our aid to Muslims like Bin Laden. Remember the Iran Iraq War. Who did we provide aid to then?
I think the danger in our conversations is that we believe political affiliation to one party or another gives the best answer to the Middle East crisis.

First of all, I agree simple political affiliation to one party does not give the best answer. It depends on the candidate. For example, I would vote for Jim Webb for a lot of reasons but never Hillary or Bernie for foreign policy reasons. The latter increase risk by either appeasement or lack of resolve.

I also get your point about Russia and China ... hey, sounds good to me. But, you still have not responded to my earlier question. Do you mean to say you think the US should simply withdraw its forces worldwide, starting say in the Mideast?? What do you think would happen if we did that?

[Guest]

Remember when the USA, Russia and Syria agreed in 2013 that Syria would destroy and not use chemical weapons again. Solid deal we were told....great negotiations by all we were told.

Today, May 6, the NY Times reports Syria is once again using chemical weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

[Guest]

Remember when the USA, Russia and Syria agreed in 2013 that Syria would destroy and not use chemical weapons again. Solid deal we were told....great negotiations by all we were told.

Today, May 6, the NY Times reports Syria is once again using chemical weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

These are very difficult issues to deal with, without a doubt. But, i's even tougher when you don't know what you're doing, eg Kerry and Obama, whocan be counted upon to tell us things they know are not true just to get the issue temporarily resolved.

That's a polite way of saying they lie to us.

[Guest]

This should make things really interesting... Israel and Saudi Arabia announced they have been meeting secretly to oppose Iran.

These are sworn enemies who fear Iran...they are also the two countries that have the most to fear from Iran, yet they have no seat at the negotiations with Iran. Dore Gould of Israel...

"Gold went on to say that Iran is now outfitting groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon with precision-guided missiles, as opposed to the unguided rockets Iran has traditionally provided its allies in Lebanon. He also said Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps forces propping up the Bashar al-Assad regime are now close to the Israeli-Syrian border."

A few years ago, it was mainly Israel that rang the alarm about Iranian expansionism in the Middle East. It is significant that now Israel is joined in this campaign by Saudi Arabia, a country that has wished for its destruction since 1948.

The two nations worry today that President Barack Obama's efforts to make peace with Iran will embolden that regime's aggression against them."


Israelis and Saudis Reveal Secret Talks to Thwart Iran - Bloomberg View (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-06-04/israelis-and-saudis-reveal-secret-talks-to-thwart-iran)

The ongoing fear that any deal with Iran could bring about a nuclear race in the Middle East springs to mind; it is not mentioned in this article, but these two countries are sworn enemies and they fear Iran enough to form this pact because of what Iran is DOING already.

I sincerely hope that I just do not get it and my fear of this deal is unfounded, but in addition to the above, the date of June 30 approaches quickly and that date is of itself the subject of conversation now....

"The question of timing is thorny for Obama and his top negotiator with Iran, Secretary of State John Kerry, who was injured in a cycling accident last weekend and whose travel schedule may be affected. On one hand, they are under pressure from those who say that Iran is simply dragging out the talks with no intention of agreeing to severe restrictions on its nuclear program. But others argue that the greater danger is the prospect of concessions made under an artificial deadline."

"With a June 30 deadline for a nuclear deal with Iran approaching, western experts and foreign allies — including a top Israeli official — are urging the Obama administration not to treat that date as sacred for fear of giving Tehran leverage in the high-stakes talks.
“The Iranians are using delay tactics. It seems they want to come close to the deadline without an agreement,” Yuval Steinitz, Israel’s energy minister, who is in Washington this week for meetings with top Obama officials, told POLITICO on Thursday. If that happens, Steinitz said, “there will be no time to close all the loopholes and clarify all the details. And this will serve the Iranians.”


Read more: Deadline for nuclear talks with Iran may be softening - Michael Crowley and Nahal Toosi - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/deadline-iran-nuclear-talks-yuval-steinitz-obama-118662.html#ixzz3cErIUGQl)

[Guest]

You never know what is really happening but just for info these two things caught my eye.

I recall when the point of what they(IRAN) had done in the past in moving toward nuclear weapons was a "deal breaker". That we had to now how far they had gone in the past and in fact, in March, this was jn the Wall St Journal...


"Without Iranian disclosure of past illicit activities, including nuclear enrichment and weaponization research, it’s hard to see how the Obama Administration can honor its core pledge to strike a deal that would give the West a one-year warning if Iran decides to build a bomb. As Olli Heinonen, the former Deputy Director-General for Safeguards at the IAEA, told us, “you need to have that baseline. You want to understand what they were doing.” An Iran that has the know-how to rapidly weaponize highly enriched uranium or plutonium may need only months to assemble a bomb."

Iran Keeps Its Nuclear Secrets - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-keeps-its-nuclear-secrets-1427410470)

Now today we have this......


"Washington (CNN)Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged Tuesday that the Iran nuclear deal most likely won't require the country to detail suspected past efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, a concession sought by Tehran.

"We are not fixated on Iran specifically accounting for what they did at one point in time or another," Kerry told reporters Tuesday by remote video from Boston, where he has been recuperating from a broken leg."

Iran likely to score concession on nuclear deal - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/16/politics/john-kerry-iran-nuclear-talks-concession/)

I find this contrast very amazing.

Are we this desperate ?

[Guest]

What is going on in this country ? How can we do what we are doing with Iran

As mentioned above we are giving to Iran on knowing their past successes, something we said we had to have. Do we just accept their word on what the basis will be on this deal ? How many of what, and we will take their word.

This is our Secy of State, in APRIL of this year....on PBS

"JUDY WOODRUFF: Still, another issue; the International Atomic Energy Agency has said for a long time that it wants Iran to disclose past military-related nuclear activities. Iran is increasingly looking like it’s not going to do this. Is the U.S. prepared to accept that?

JOHN KERRY: No. They have to do it. It will be done. If there’s going to be a deal; it will be done.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Because it’s not there now.

JOHN KERRY: It will be done.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So that information will be released before June 30th, will be available.

JOHN KERRY: It will be part of a final agreement. It has to be.


John Kerry’s ludicrous statements on Iran and Syria - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/06/17/john-kerrys-ludicrous-statements-on-iran-and-syria/)

NOW...WE see he has backed off. And lest you think this is unimportant...

"Former CIA chief Michael Hayden says Kerry’s newest position is indefensible. “I’d like to see the DNI or any intelligence office repeat that word for me. They won’t. What he is saying is that we don’t care how far they’ve gotten with weaponization. We’re betting the farm on our ability to limit the production of fissile material.” Now, if they want to make that bet, they can, but the administration should level with us and not insist revelations of PMDs are unimportant. Instead, Hayden says, “He’s pretending we have perfect knowledge about something that was an incredibly tough intelligence target while I was director and I see nothing that has made it any easier.”

Mark Dubowitz, the widely respected sanctions guru from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, agrees with Kerry’s original statement. “For Secretary Kerry to claim we have absolute knowledge of Iran’s weaponization activities is to assume a level of U.S. intelligence capability that defies historical experience. That’s why he, President Obama, Undersecretary Sherman, and IAEA chief Amano all have made PMD resolution such an essential condition of any nuclear deal,” Dubowitz tells me. “The U.S. track record in detecting and stopping countries from going nuclear should make Kerry more modest in his claims and assumptions. The U.S. missed the Soviet Union, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Washington underestimated Saddam’s program in 1990. Then it overestimated his program in 2003 and went to war to stop a nonexistent WMD program. Given this track record, the Obama administration’s abandonment of yet another nuclear demand, especially one as critical as a resolution of Iran’s weaponization past and present, is inexplicable.” Well, it is inexplicable except if one believes the president is frantic to make a deal no matter how bad.


WHAT ARE WE DOING ?

[Guest]

Amazing how these same guys keep answering themselves in their repetitive posts, isn't it?

Keep talking to yourselves, guys, no one else is listening to you. We are bored with your yadda, yadda, yadda.

Now, I expect a rant from this poster about being a troll and a crony. Ho Hum! Once again, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Okay, give it your best:ohdear:with your troll & crony lambast. We await your usual.

If the remainder of the Gang of Six (now down to three) want to chime in, do it.

[Guest]

Amazing how these same guys keep answering themselves in their repetitive posts, isn't it?

Keep talking to yourselves, guys, no one else is listening to you. We are bored with your yadda, yadda, yadda.

Now, I expect a rant from this poster about being a troll and a crony. Ho Hum! Once again, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Okay, give it your best:ohdear:with your troll & crony lambast. We await your usual.

If the remainder of the Gang of Six (now down to three) want to chime in, do it.

We're very proud of you!! You've finally had the self insight and come out of the closet and identified yourself as "the" chief troll of TOTV .. a rare honor.

[Guest]

We're very proud of you!! You've finally had the self insight and come out of the closet and identified yourself as "the" chief troll of TOTV .. a rare honor.

Nope, not "The Chief". Just an admirer of The Chief. We meet weekly to decide which of the Gang of Three we will take apart with snark and mirth on their spittle covered rants.

Have a good day, stay cool and keep hydrated with plenty of water.

[Guest]

Nope, not "The Chief". Just an admirer of The Chief. We meet weekly to decide which of the Gang of Three we will take apart with snark and mirth on their spittle covered rants.

Have a good day, stay cool and keep hydrated with plenty of water.

Amazing the pride shown in being what 99.9 % of people try to avoid.

[Guest]

This is written by a man,Aaron David Miller, who has served both political parties negotiated on behalf of the USA in the Middle East, and is considered a public policy scholar.


"Once Iran learned how to make a nuke, there wasn’t much chance for a really good and reassuring deal on the nuclear issue. The agreement being negotiated now may well be the least bad of the terrible options available to slow Iran’s nuclear program.[B] But we should be clear-eyed about what else we may be getting from this deal: a richer and stronger Iran, one pushing for a Middle East more hostile to the U.S.–and one that will still retain the capacity to build nuclear weapons

"Once Iran learned how to make a nuke, there wasn’t much chance for a really good and reassuring deal on the nuclear issue. The agreement being negotiated now may well be the least bad of the terrible options available to slow Iran’s nuclear program. But we should be clear-eyed about what else we may be getting from this deal: a richer and stronger Iran, one pushing for a Middle East more hostile to the U.S.–and one that will still retain the capacity to build nuclear weapons.

It’s the cruelest of ironies that this issue is now the pathway offering Iran a way in from the cold. It would be fine if the agreement could truly end Iran’s ability and motivation to have a nuclear-weapons option. But it hardly lays to rest those concerns.

Iran will agree to what will likely be a smaller, more easily monitored nuclear program. But there can be no real assurance, let alone guarantee, that this will be the “forever” deal Secretary of State John Kerry referred to. What is guaranteed–what will be the new normal in the Middle East–is that Iran will emerge as a state with the right to enrich uranium and continue R&D while maintaining some nuclear infrastructure. Iran has played us and its card well, profiting from sanctions relief without abandoning its nuclear-weapons aspirations, let alone its repressive policies at home or its expansionist aims abroad.

The Obama Administration argues that regardless of Iran’s behavior in the region, constraining Tehran’s nuclear program is important in its own right. But Iran is not Japan, a nuclear threshold state that respects international principles. It’s impossible to separate the nuclear issue from Iran’s regional aspirations. Keeping the world on edge about Iran’s nuclear-weapons capacity and ensuring that the U.S. remains an adversary are still vital for the regime’s survival–and this agreement isn’t going to make Iran a moderate anytime soon.

The nuclear deal will bring Iran money and legitimacy in a turbulent region. Iran has influence on just about every issue the U.S. confronts in the Middle East: Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, ISIS, Yemen. And while Tehran is prepared to cooperate when that serves its interests, its view of the region is not Washington’s. Far from constraining Iran’s power, the deal may well enhance it as it directs more resources to its Iraqi Shi’ite, Yemeni Houthi, Syrian Alawite and Hizballah allies and surrogates. And the opening to Iran has alienated Saudi Arabia and Israel, U.S. allies who fear Iran’s rise."

Iran Nuclear Deal Will Not Be Good for the U.S. (http://time.com/3926098/no-the-iran-nuclear-deal-will-not-be-good-for-the-u-s/)

While the troll element on here objects to reading and staying informed, this is a serious deal we are about to venture into. We often talk about learning from the past. This is an opportunity to understand clearly what we are doing before we do it for the wrong reasons.

While the reading on this is extensive, this deal may well impact our lives, and certainly this of our children and grandchildren.

Repeating this section...

".... the deal may well enhance it as it directs more resources to its Iraqi Shi’ite, Yemeni Houthi, Syrian Alawite and Hizballah allies and surrogates. And the opening to Iran has alienated Saudi Arabia and Israel, U.S. allies who fear Iran’s rise."

If those trolls tire when reading, or experience an overload when digesting facts, I am sorry.

I am not going to apologize to anyone for being a concerted American, who wants to deal with facts, instead of spin.

[Guest]

Nope, not "The Chief". Just an admirer of The Chief. We meet weekly to decide which of the Gang of Three we will take apart with snark and mirth on their spittle covered rants.

Have a good day, stay cool and keep hydrated with plenty of water.

You guys really need to call an emergency staff meeting. You have rarely been able to take anything apart intellectually or based on factual evidence ... that's what so funny about your post.

The only thing you can do is call names and attempt to shut down the debate but, even when you attempt that, it's done poorly and sometimes unintelligibly.

Please, do something to up the level of your game. :)

[Guest]

You guys really need to call an emergency staff meeting. You have rarely been able to take anything apart intellectually or based on factual evidence ... that's what so funny about your post.

The only thing you can do is call names and attempt to shut down the debate but, even when you attempt that, it's done poorly and sometimes unintelligibly.

Please, do something to up the level of your game. :)

This reminds me of early high school/elementary school. A group of young men who just can't belong, sneaking around to make fun of those who are normal.

[Guest]

Keep in mind that these trolls are ADULTS (chronologically) and live nearby and are our neighbors.

This from that TOPIX site again (posted this morning).... I knew he would be on there again because he sounded angry this morning and last evening.

This post from Topix is in answer to someone, who supposedly asked if The Villages was near Ocala.

"Yep, if you're a tea ****** or kkk member with a dog you'll fit right in. Be sure and visit totv political forum and meet my buds the gang of six. We don't like libtards and burn crosses weekly at our beloved tea party meetins. Then we brag about it on totv political forum. We only allow Fox News on all our tvs."

This could be your neighbor, across the street, someone you met at the squares. They DO IN FACT post on the regular forums and often mention how they visit the squares.

This time I did not go looking. We were out most of the morning but when i returned, I had a phone message from up North telling me to visit there. We have lots of folks who get their entertainment, and many barbs for me, from reading here and on Topix. Nice to have these trolls make us look bad, but after all...that is what they are after.

Which reminds me...why do the trolls even come on the political forum ? Never participate in discussions...only mock. Really makes you wonder !

[Guest]

Keep in mind that these trolls are ADULTS (chronologically) and live nearby and are our neighbors.

This from that TOPIX site again (posted this morning).... I knew he would be on there again because he sounded angry this morning and last evening.

This post from Topix is in answer to someone, who supposedly asked if The Villages was near Ocala.

"Yep, if you're a tea ****** or kkk member with a dog you'll fit right in. Be sure and visit totv political forum and meet my buds the gang of six. We don't like libtards and burn crosses weekly at our beloved tea party meetins. Then we brag about it on totv political forum. We only allow Fox News on all our tvs."

This could be your neighbor, across the street, someone you met at the squares. They DO IN FACT post on the regular forums and often mention how they visit the squares.

This time I did not go looking. We were out most of the morning but when i returned, I had a phone message from up North telling me to visit there. We have lots of folks who get their entertainment, and many barbs for me, from reading here and on Topix. Nice to have these trolls make us look bad, but after all...that is what they are after.

Which reminds me...why do the trolls even come on the political forum ? Never participate in discussions...only mock. Really makes you wonder !

The guy who posted what you highlighted in bold is obviously, and clearly, mentally deranged, coupled with making up total fabrications designed to smear his opponents. He can't duel or engage intellectually so he resorts to literally the crudest form of epithets.

What does one do with a crazy person when all is said and done?? At least that guy has not pestered the TOTV boards in a while that I've seen. You can tell who he (or she?) is by the tenor and vitriol of his posts. He really does need to be medicated ... ie no kidding about this.

[Guest]

This from our own State Department. I realize that most of you might not care but I think this potential deal is so very important to our country long range.

"Iran remains a state of nuclear “proliferation concern,” has kept up its support for terrorism in the Middle East and is trying to grow its influence in regions as far away as Latin America, the State Department said in its latest report on global terrorism."



Read more: Iran still a proliferation 'concern' State Dept. says - Nahal Toosi - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/iran-proliferation-concern-state-department-report-119208.html#ixzz3dWoLUFG1)

[Guest]

This from our own State Department. I realize that most of you might not care but I think this potential deal is so very important to our country long range.

"Iran remains a state of nuclear “proliferation concern,” has kept up its support for terrorism in the Middle East and is trying to grow its influence in regions as far away as Latin America, the State Department said in its latest report on global terrorism."



Read more: Iran still a proliferation 'concern' State Dept. says - Nahal Toosi - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/iran-proliferation-concern-state-department-report-119208.html#ixzz3dWoLUFG1)


I have followed a number of your posts on this topic. Well done and I agree with the gist of what you said.

Unfortunately, we are being sold down the river by the current administration and most people don't even have a clue as to the long (even mid) term implications. It's a game changer but the largely brainless American public (ie 75% of so?) remains focused on Bruce Jenner, Rachel Dolezal and various other empty aspects of our culture.

We are no longer feared by our enemies ... if anything we are mocked and held in contempt by them. The Iran "deal" is a PERFECT example of our vacuity. John Kerry ...I'm guessing he will be wind surfing when the s*** hits the fan a few years down the road.

[Guest]

Iran equal dedicated killers and murderers commited and spoken to continue to do so....terrorism sanctuary and sponsor/supporter.

Obama (not USA!) dedicated to anything that makes it look like he has done something no other president was able to do.....and he may be right.....making a deal with an enemy commited to continue to supporting slaughter of innocents.

What I see are people, too many Americans, who are willing to accept what is going down as they interpret it to be a party loyalist. They have set aside their values for life, freedoms and safety of peaceful peoples in the world to back the party.

I would like to hear from an opposition party purist, without regard for party, just exactly why they believe there is no danger in allowing Iran to gain nuclear capability? Why should they not be seen for what they portray, an enemy of our way of life?

Just for once with no party pandering. Think in terms of your future family members being killed or tortured if they do not yield to Islam. Get personally involved.

Is it possible?

[Guest]

Deadline for this is now about 48-72 hours away, so thought would move this up.

My thoughts....nobody wants war at all so let's get that straight.

My concern is that Iran, to this day, is the largest state supporter of terrorism. They still, to this day, say their desire is to destroy Israel. They still condemn our country.

We KNOW whatever the deal is, they will get nuclear weapons. The time frame is the only question.

I do not know what is in the deal or not in the deal, but last I read any specifics, Iran was holding firm on NO inspection of previous sites, NO allowance of any details as to where they were in development.

Will congress allow this to become just another political debate...Democrats versus Republicans ? Are there statesman on the left that might go against the President on this ? Will this, if there is a deal, be the beginning of an nuclear arms race in the Middle East with countries trying to stay even with a country that sponsors terrorism who they know will have it, and from what I read with our assistance ?

This is very uneasy for me, and wondering how others view it ?

[Guest]

I suppose you are not allowed to BUMP any thread but this issue of Iran is far more important than Donald Trump or crowds at Sanders rallies and yet we do not discuss.

Perhaps because we are guessing at the details ? I tried to form a few questions in my last post but to me, this is a very big deal.

[Guest]

Just wait until or if there is a deal. Obama will have a camera in his face nation wide 30 minutes later. He will tell us how HE made it possible to be at peace even with those we may have disagreements.
He will procede to tell us how much safer we all are as a result of HIS agenda.

HOWEVER.....do not expect to hear any details of the plan or how it will work to assure there is no nuclear weapon to threaten the world with.

The Iranians have declared and confirmed time and again that the USA is their enemy. They are the source of much of the sponsored terrorism. They will continue to laugh at us at every opportunity they have.

Their general in charge of all the Iranian land forces stated yesterday that even if there is a signed agreement, Iran and the USA will remain "ENEMIES".

We may not like the Iranian leadership but what we know for sure, they are not two faced......we are their enemy and they are sworn to defeat their enemy..........

Iranian agreement = waste of time political cannon fodder and bragging rights for Obama (only).

[Guest]

THIS does no sway me



"For now all eyes are on Iran, which has the fourth biggest oil reserves in the world. A big part of the nuclear deal is that the West will lift sanctions on Iran, allowing it to increase its oil exports. That could be a game changer by deepening the oversupply of oil and sending prices down even further."


Oil prices dive below $53 as Iran deal looms - Jul. 6, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/06/investing/oil-prices-iran-nuclear-deal/)

Point is, from what we are hearing there will be a deal.

Gotta be honest, I have been posting about this and my concerns. I cannot think of anything that might sway me.

[Guest]

THIS does no sway me



"For now all eyes are on Iran, which has the fourth biggest oil reserves in the world. A big part of the nuclear deal is that the West will lift sanctions on Iran, allowing it to increase its oil exports. That could be a game changer by deepening the oversupply of oil and sending prices down even further."


Oil prices dive below $53 as Iran deal looms - Jul. 6, 2015 (http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/06/investing/oil-prices-iran-nuclear-deal/)

Point is, from what we are hearing there will be a deal.

Gotta be honest, I have been posting about this and my concerns. I cannot think of anything that might sway me.

Remember, this could be a difference between $2.55 gasoline and $7.00 gasoline. I will take the cheapest gasoline, thank you.

[Guest]

Remember, this could be a difference between $2.55 gasoline and $7.00 gasoline. I will take the cheapest gasoline, thank you.

Interesting......before possible nuclear proliferation in the Middle East ? Despite the promise of Iran having weapons within what ever time is negotiated ?

[Guest]

Remember, this could be a difference between $2.55 gasoline and $7.00 gasoline. I will take the cheapest gasoline, thank you.

Wow! Innocent lives are second to YOUR price of gas!

I guess that is an indicator of where some Americans priorities are. Me first and everything that does not affect me personally is....OK!

[Guest]

Wow! Innocent lives are second to YOUR price of gas!

I guess that is an indicator of where some Americans priorities are. Me first and everything that does not affect me personally is....OK!

You would be in the minority if you think different than I do. Ask around and see if your fellow Villagers would walk the walk of the certainty of paying $7 a gallon for gasoline or a very small possibility (and it is just that) of Iran achieving a nuclear weapon.

[Guest]

I doubt there is hradly anyone in the world today that isn't aware of the deal being made between Iran and Obama. And I'll wager than there are many that understand the deal is once again a retreat by Obama.

So in my view the only thing left to be said about the Iranian deal is that it is just insanity leading this nation.

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

I doubt there is hradly anyone in the world today that isn't aware of the deal being made between Iran and Obama. And I'll wager than there are many that understand the deal is once again a retreat by Obama.

So in my view the only thing left to be said about the Iranian deal is that it is just insanity leading this nation.

Personal Best Regards:

I totally disagree with your view. Deals, concessions, and compromises must be made at times even with a disagreeable person or nation in order to achieve goals.

Now, what about the cheaper gasoline vs the sky-high gasoline question?

[Guest]

Reaching agreement with a disagreeable person is much different than conceding to a publicly sworn enemy of the USA. An enemy that has openly supported terrorism and those who would kill Americans and any others not sworn to Islam.

The issue is not about the agreement. The agreement is about the fact it does provide for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. In addition we all know from history that any agreement that Iran reaches they will walk away from and ignore anytime it gets in the way of their agenda.

The price of gasoline is a hypothetical. The world has been doing just fine without the impact of Iranoil. The only contribution oil from Iran would have is adding to the supply and reducing prices FROM WHERE THE ARE NOW.......not upward.

Are you promoting cheap gas in exchange for nuclear instability? Nuclear threat to Americans?

Those are the realities......NOT CHEAP GAS!

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;



Are you promoting cheap gas in exchange for nuclear instability? Nuclear threat to Americans?
![/QUOTE]

Iran poses no nuclear threat to America. End of story.

[Guest]

First of all, to use gas prices as some sort of milestone to be attached to negotiations on nuclear is just plain crazy and needs to be dismissed out of hand.

Listen, this is nothing new....

President Clinton tried to engage with Iran to improve relations, but was met with no or very little in the way of a response.

President George Bush got the furthest up till now. He reached out to Iran shortly after 9/11. President Bush and Iran worked closely in setting up the new government in Afghanistan. After Saddam was overthrown, again President Bush reached out to Iran and actually met at the ambassador level a few times.

Iran though continued to arm the rebels in Iraq and turned to the terrorism

Most of this work was done within or through the UN, although some was direct including those meetings in Iraq but he was successful in getting an agreement by Iran in 2004 and in fact the US sponsored their membership into several international organizations in hopes of getting anti nuclear talks.

I think in 2005 or so we entered into discussions, such as we are having now and that went nowhere because as they have in these negotiations, they would just huff and puff and finally when it was clear they were starting back up the installation of the sanctions began.

So through a number of administrations, Iran has acted much the same. Bush set up the structure for the sanctions because Iran just would not cooperate.

I bring all this history up because this route we are on is not a new one. I do not know what changes within Iran has taken place, but I know their track record and it sucks.

I have been pounding on this because, and this is based simply on news reports for whatever they may be worth, we keep giving ground. They STILL sponsor terrorists, they STILL spout anti USA stuff and threaten to completely destroy Israel.

If we make a deal, they will suddenly become a nation that overnight becomes a major player on the world stage...see oil, see influence in the mideast, see military strength, etc. They want the sanctions done and now. THAT will be what they want and based on past experience, they will promise anything at all to get that. They refuse to allow inspections now and that brings up, WHY NOT ? What will change in the future ?

I am trying hard to have an open mind on this, but it is hard. IF the deal is what I read, and again based on news reports, they WILL GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS, and the only thing is when.

But basing anything on gas prices when you speak of nuclear weapons in the hands of the largest state to sponsor other TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS in the middle east is not something that is in play.

[Guest]

Iran poses no nuclear threat to America. End of story.

On what information do you base this news ???

Certainly not on what they say. Certainly not on their actions in the ME.

Please give more specifics

[Guest]

Iran poses no nuclear threat to America?? Just had my laugh for the day. That is absurd. My God, what planet are you living on?

[Guest]

Iran poses no nuclear threat to America?? Just had my laugh for the day. That is absurd. My God, what planet are you living on?


No reason for name calling by anyone.

[Guest]

No reason for name calling by anyone.

I agree, but I also think that each poster has a responsibility to explain their post, otherwise we have a group of poster signs as you would see at a march.

If you are the poster who said Iran was not threat to the USA...fine, make your point but your post was what you might call a "fly by". You said nothing of any substance nor did you substantiate your statement.

[Guest]

Iran poses no nuclear threat to America. End of story.

Well you said it more than once in the same thread.
So far nobody is calling anybody any names. We are just taken back first of all by the comment. Then further by the end of story finality. And again repeating it.

We are convinced it must be something believe for some reason.

All we want to know is what information do you have that is counter to everything and anything published through a history of just the opposite.
Do you agree they support terrorism?
You most certainly have heard they are on record to wipe Israel off the map?
You must also be knowledgeable their teachings are to destroy the infedels (that would be us by the way).
And since you are informed you must have heard Iran's threats to have nuclear weapons if that is what they decide.
Have you read this week Iran's general in charge of ground troops that no matter what agreement may be reached....America is still the enemy of Iran.

So please enlighten us as to the reasoning behind your statements....or are they truly just fly bycommentary?

[Guest]

Well you said it more than once in the same thread.
So far nobody is calling anybody any names. We are just taken back first of all by the comment. Then further by the end of story finality. And again repeating it.

We are convinced it must be something believe for some reason.

All we want to know is what information do you have that is counter to everything and anything published through a history of just the opposite.
Do you agree they support terrorism?
You most certainly have heard they are on record to wipe Israel off the map?
You must also be knowledgeable their teachings are to destroy the infedels (that would be us by the way).
And since you are informed you must have heard Iran's threats to have nuclear weapons if that is what they decide.
Have you read this week Iran's general in charge of ground troops that no matter what agreement may be reached....America is still the enemy of Iran.

So please enlighten us as to the reasoning behind your statements....or are they truly just fly bycommentary?

No, I would rather not "enlighten you". It is your way to ridicule and I really do not want to hear it. I gave my opinion so let it stand at that.

If the United States government believes that a deal like this with Iran is in the best nature of our country, I do believe them. There are risks but they must be taken. The experts in our government have extensive training and knowledge and do know more than the experts on this forum, I believe.

Thank you.

[Guest]

No, I would rather not "enlighten you". It is your way to ridicule and I really do not want to hear it. I gave my opinion so let it stand at that.

If the United States government believes that a deal like this with Iran is in the best nature of our country, I do believe them. There are risks but they must be taken. The experts in our government have extensive training and knowledge and do know more than the experts on this forum, I believe.

Thank you.

Nice attempt! Flyby commentary acknowledged!

[Guest]

Some interesting food for thought. First about the author because so many think everything is about politics...

"Stephen Sestanovich (born June 8, 1950) is an American government official, academic, and author. He is presently the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. His areas of expertise include Russia and the former Soviet Union, the Caucasus and Central Asia, and U.S. foreign policy.[1]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Sestanovich

Some of his thoughts....short so please give it a read....

"President Barack Obama reportedly says the odds of getting an acceptable nuclear deal with Iran are less than 50-50. I have no reason to doubt that estimate, and continuing delays in the Vienna negotiations reinforce it. Still, I’m going to take a chance and describe what I think will be three key areas of debate if an agreement is reached. Two are already much discussed; the third needs more attention.

. A Deal Would Disarm Us Psychologically. My fellow Think Tank contributor Ray Takeyh has warned that a deal grants Iran too much respectability and implicitly legitimizes its regional ambitions. I don’t buy it. The Obama administration knows a deal will sink unless it looks ready to stand up to Iran in the Middle East. Talk of détente? I expect to hear the opposite.

2. The Iranians Might Cheat. Critics ask whether we will be able to detect violations and respond effectively. Tehran has made this concern acute by (a) cheating in the past, and (b) demanding verification loopholes that could make it easier to cheat again. The talks are dragging on because Secretary of State John Kerry knows that he will need crisp and convincing answers on verifiability—and on how sanctions can be reimposed if cheating occurs.

3. The Iranians Might Not Cheat. There is, however, a more likely scenario than cheating–and it’s one more difficult to manage. Iran may actually abide by the deal. The tentative agreement reached in April, which has apparently not changed much, provided for 10 years of strict limits on Iran’s nuclear program and then a five-year glide path in which those limits are eased. President Obama has said that Iran will then be able to build a nuclear weapon on short notice. During this five-year period, as Iran reduces its “break out” time to nearly zero, Washington would be unable to claim that Tehran is violating the agreement.

Does the administration have an answer to the problem of Iranian compliance? Not yet, but here are two things it could say:


First, precisely because Iranian capabilities may expand after 10 years, the intrusive inspections provided by the deal will be essential. We have to know what Tehran is doing.

Second (and this will be much more controversial), the president could say now that, while the agreement allows Iran to reduce its break-out time after 10 years, the U.S. does not have to accept it. Washington could announce that, if Iran starts to expand its capabilities as the deal allows, whoever is president should renounce the agreement, seek new sanctions, and (you know the phrase) “put all options on the table.” Ideally, other governments negotiating the deal in Vienna would say the same thing.

Watch closely to see whether the administration can fashion a better answer to this problem than mine. If his answer is not at least as good, President Obama should expect to lose the debate."

Suppose Iran Doesn (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/07/10/suppose-iran-doesnt-cheat-but-abides-by-a-nuclear-deal-what-then/)

[Guest]

This has been mentioned in a few posts and really needs to be considered..

"An Iran nuclear deal could mean a new arms race in the Middle East—or improved relations between historic enemies, experts told CNBC.

"To some extent, [a Middle East arms race] is already happening. And it's not just because of an Iranian nuclear program or a deal, it's the threat perception—the perception that Iran is ascendant in the Middle East," said Alireza Nader, senior international policy analyst at the Rand Corp. "

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/10/iran-deal-could-mean-arms-race-oil-price-change.html

"
"Some worry that an Iran freed from crippling economic sanctions and the arms embargo could result in greater assertiveness from the Islamic State group. Predominantly Shiite Iran already supports armed groups against its Sunni foe in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria."

[Guest]

While Barry and Kerry dance at the end of the puppet strings the Iranians laugh and continue with their intents:

Iran Made Illegal Purchases of Nuclear Weapons Technology Last Month | The Weekly Standard (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/iran-made-illegal-purchases-nuclear-weapons-technology-last-month_988067.html)

Is there no limit to the tolerance of Washington continuing to pursue personal goals that make the USA look stupid!!!

[Guest]

When this deal is given to Congress, my hope is that discussion and approval will be non party oriented.

Not sure if that is possible, but I just want our leaders to be statesmen first and politicians second.

[Guest]

When this deal is given to Congress, my hope is that discussion and approval will be non party oriented.

Not sure if that is possible, but I just want our leaders to be statesmen first and politicians second.

Depending on the surprises it coauld wind up bi-partisan dis-approval.

[Guest]

depending on the surprises it coauld wind up bi-partisan dis-approval.

does not matter.

President said he will veto any disapproval

[Guest]

veto can be over ridden if the bi partisan support is sufficient to do so.

[Guest]

Not all democrats amrch obediently to Obama's legacy drum beat. The issues at hand that could be unacceptable to any and all open minded American citizens, like immediate lifting of the sanctions and immediate elimination of non nuclear weapons sanctions.

These are the two major issues that will strengthen Iran and provide more resources to continue to support and promote terrorism

The chanting in the streets this past week of death to America and their commanding general of all ground forces on record stating no matter what agreement is reached, America remains the enemy of Iran.

These two issues have been presented as unacceptable by both parties in Washington.

At some point it becomes reality that any strengthening of an enemy will eventually result in American deaths. That is sufficient incentive to lay partisan politics aside.

Let the Obama legacy no matter what drum beaters be acknowledged and then move their minority position off to the side.

[Guest]

Seems to me, just quickly hearing some terms that this is a great deal for Russia and anti Israel terrorists.

Russia already talking about gearing up arms sales to Iran, and no mention of stopping Iran from arming the terrorists.

[Guest]

Seems to me, just quickly hearing some terms that this is a great deal for Russia and anti Israel terrorists.

Russia already talking about gearing up arms sales to Iran, and no mention of stopping Iran from arming the terrorists.

The amatuer team of Barry and Kerry, two legacy seekers (instead of the well being of the USA and the world....against the bad guys of the world who are doing and getting done what it is they need to nuture and grow the bad guys.....all the while laughing as they compare notes on progress.

All the bad guys have to do is tune into the USA media to find out what Obama will do if America does not approve his legacy moves.

Skilled bad guy negotiators against self centered politicians who will not be in power to witness the results of their stupidity.....the bad guys will be with our help.

Between this issue and the one about immigration it is obvious we the people are not yet inspired or frightened enough about the pending results if we do not stop the giving away of America for the sake of personal gains by an incompetent community organizer put at the controls of the greates nation on earth.....

[Guest]

Wondering about the five Americans being held prisoner there ? One at least for being a christian.

Wonder why this would not be part of a deal

[Guest]

How do you negotiate a deal with two countries on your "side", Russia, and China, who benefit from the deal with Iran? What guarantee do you have that Russia, and China will go along with increased sanctions against Iran, if the deal fell through? Given the makeup of the p5 plus one, Kerry was not dealing from a position of strength.

Talk about hindsight, the economic sanctions should not lifted in the first place unless the items in dispute weren't that far apart.

Concerning the dancing in the street of Iran, I am sure you could a group of trained monkeys to chant how great America is.

Don't worry Iran will never get nuclear weapons. Israel will see to that. It will a hellva lot more than four planes leveling the nuclear sites.

Stop this nonsense about Obama and Kerry legacy being the reason a deal was made with Iran. If Iran cheats on the deal, you will be dancing in the street, because their legacy will go down the drain.

[Guest]

TOTV has been amenable enough to allow political opinion to be discussed and you all show your appreciation with this drivel. Discuss topics, but leave this childish Talk to the playground. Let's discuss WHO can do WHAT to fix problems, not the past. Ggggggeeeeeeezzzzzz.

The restrictions posed by "Guest" and the resultant anonymity has made this forum essentially worthless

In an attempt to avoid controversy, TOTV has managed to ensure mediocrity and loss of interest.

[Guest]

Some posts would be an improvement as they achieve mediocrity.

[Guest]

The restrictions posed by "Guest" and the resultant anonymity has made this forum essentially worthless

In an attempt to avoid controversy, TOTV has managed to ensure mediocrity and loss of interest.

It would be nice, although many of us know who they are, to have everyone be aware of the character lacking trolls.

[Guest]

As per usual now that the agreement has been reached we will find out what is in it....sound familiar?

Here is one revelation that Iran demanded:

Iran Bans U.S. Inspectors from All Nuclear Sites | Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-bans-u-s-inspectors-from-all-nuclear-sites/)

It would be of interest to hear a non political reason why?

[Guest]

There hasn't been a post on this thread, since the Presidents news conference. He made it clear he wanted to know what the alternative is. War! There is no guarantee that everyone will join back in with the sanctions, if the deal falls through because of Congress.

Won't Congress be giving the P5 plus one the unmistakable impression that they know better how to deal with Iran than the people in the P5 plus one that worked for a very long time on the deal?

You don't think the governments around the world will think that Congress is playing politics as usual. Democrats voting against the President might give some believability to overriding the veto. Who will be negotiating a new agreement with Iran, if Congress overrides the veto? Kerry! Is someone going to talk to Russia, and China before they vote to override the veto to see, if they are willing to reinstate the sanctions?

Overriding the veto is playing with fire.

[Guest]

When I say from time to time that Obama and now Kerry speak to a subject they feel they have addressed and solved of fixed the problem or issue being discussed.

Most recent Kerry example when answering about the American catives in Iran and I am paraphrasing..."there was not a single session where these captives were not brought up".

In his political view of just about everything he thinks he did the job, by bringing it up. In the real world he is looking mighty stupid. If they were brought up in every session and an agreement is reach....and the prisoners are not a part of the agreement what does that imply? Mean? Portray?

There had to be more important bits of give and take than the prisoners?
Kerry did not negotiate from strength, he either left them on the table or caved in to Iran for something else? Something else? Still waiting to hear what did we get from the deal.

I will allow that maybe....MAYBE they agreed that they not be part of the agreement and Iran at some future date, will make a benevelent gesture and release the prisoners, so Obama and Kerry can swoon and get in the face of the camera stating to the effect....se what good comes from open dialogue and friendship with an adversary.

If anybody does not care for my hypothesis then present why you think (we know none of us know) the prisoners were brought up every session they were in but did not make the priority list of the agreement.

Politicians, especially lawyer trained politicians have no attachment what so ever to the realities of their constituency.
That is why they (ALL) talk a good game and nothing gets done. UNless it is special interest, re-election or personal agenda driven!

[Guest]

The final question should be, do you feel safer under the Iran deal. You have no say on the agreement. We are too far down on the food chain for that.

[Guest]

The final question should be, do you feel safer under the Iran deal. NO...worse off now!!!


You have no say on the agreement. Until such time as it is outlawed we the people do have a say...it is our obligation to let our representatives know what we think....they, unfortunately, thrive on the silent majority.


We are too far down on the food chain for that. Never!!



I disagree....see my answers in the quote.

[Guest]

The final question should be, do you feel safer under the Iran deal. You have no say on the agreement. We are too far down on the food chain for that.


Congress won't even be debating or voting on the Iran deal until September, after their August recess. There is plenty of time to contact our congress people and attend town hall meetings.

Could the other five countries go ahead with the Iran deal even if our congress votes it down?

[Guest]

Politicians, especially lawyer trained politicians have no attachment what so ever to the realities of their constituency. That is why they (ALL) talk a good game and nothing gets done. UNless it is special interest, re-election or personal agenda driven.

When you talk in absolutes, you are usually proven wrong. If that was the case, we wouldn't have any social programs unless you throw social programs into the personal agenda category. Without a doubt especially now most of them fall into the category above. Low lifes! Kerry said the prisoners were brought up in every meeting. That is an absolute. So, he probably full of crap.

Doesn't it makes sense that there are prisoners from the other P5 plus one countries in jail also? They are probably not from Russia or China, but from the other three countries. If they weren't, why would our partners in these talks let our prisoners stop the agreement? Sometimes, we think to much of ourselves. We weren't the only country in the talks with Iran.

If we back out of the agreement, what is the alternative, especially if the UN countries think we are the problem not Iran? Sanctions from us and a few countries in Europe aren't worth a damn. Stop talking about Iran getting the bomb 10-15 years from now, talk about now. What the hell is the alternative now that we signed the agreement?

[Guest]

I think Obama is waging strategic jihad against the US, and this is one way of doing it.

I agree ... the liberals will mock and make fun of your point, but then again, liberals hate the country so anything that helps destroy it makes them happy.

Obama is THE strategic jihadist. Allah Akbar.

[Guest]

I agree ... the liberals will mock and make fun of your point, but then again, liberals hate the country so anything that helps destroy it makes them happy.

Obama is THE strategic jihadist. Allah Akbar.


Ah, the Tea Bags of The Villages have come out of their closet - with fresh white sheets.

Isn't it great that we have the patriotic Tea Bags of The Villages to protect us from those evil liberals who hate this country but love to play golf in The Villages?

I shot a 35 on Southern Star this morning. Not too tacky for a liberal, is it?

[Guest]

Ah, the Tea Bags of The Villages have come out of their closet - with fresh white sheets.

Isn't it great that we have the patriotic Tea Bags of The Villages to protect us from those evil liberals who hate this country but love to play golf in The Villages?

I shot a 35 on Southern Star this morning. Not too tacky for a liberal, is it?

Impressively lame non-reply as usual, except for your moronic white sheets which is lamer still

[Guest]

Barrack Obama will go down as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. History.
He was elected by people who simply wanted to say that they voted for the first Black President!

He was totally unprepared for this job. We are now not respected overseas. China literally owns us! We borrow $$$ from them and then turn around and pay that borrowed money to them for everything we use in this country...when was the last time you turned something over and it didn't say 'made in China!'

Obama has brought 'Race Relations' back to where we were in the 1960's!
He is a race baiter along with Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and the rest of his inner circle. MLK would be Broken Hearted if he were alive today!

I pray that we get a new President who has this country's needs in mind when they are elected. And I am certainly not talking about Clinton! The most untrustworthy person in Washington next to Obama!

[Guest]

I notice all these Liberals like to come down to Florida from the Northeast/Northcentral to escape the High Taxes up there!!!!

Just please don't turn this place into the Hell Hole that you came from!!!!!

[Guest]

Each member of congress was handed a copy of the Iran agreement over this past week-end. They now have 90 days to read, digest, research and then vote on the agreement. During that 90 day period, they will be on recess the month of August, returning to their districts to hold town hall meetings to hear from their constituents.

Let your congressperson know what you think after carefully reading the agreement in full.

As the president has said there are three choices; the agreement, no agreement or war.

[Guest]

Each member of congress was handed a copy of the Iran agreement over this past week-end. They now have 90 days to read, digest, research and then vote on the agreement. During that 90 day period, they will be on recess the month of August, returning to their districts to hold town hall meetings to hear from their constituents.

Let your congressperson know what you think after carefully reading the agreement in full.

As the president has said there are three choices; the agreement, no agreement or war.

Absurd post, but it does sound like this President speaking.....always the politician

[Guest]

Each member of congress was handed a copy of the Iran agreement over this past week-end. They now have 90 days to read, digest, research and then vote on the agreement. During that 90 day period, they will be on recess the month of August, returning to their districts to hold town hall meetings to hear from their constituents.

Let your congressperson know what you think after carefully reading the agreement in full.

As the president has said there are three choices; the agreement, no agreement or war.

That is what he said because he is using the age old verbal tactic of presenting least acceptable alternatives ONLY and making it look like we have a choice.

What happened to the option of continuing sanctions? If not effective how about adding the more stringent sanctions that kept being shot down by Harry Reid and his cronies for the last couple of years?

Why is not acceptable to cause Iran as much pain and grief and need as possible?

Of course none of the latter coincide with Obama's need to play nice and give Iran everything they need to become stronger and a more capable force in the middle east. It does not allow Obama to make it look like he did what no other president could. Well he did that.

He made a deal with an enemy that even today is still declaring the USA as it's enemy.

When did making the enemy stronger and more capable become an accetable tactic to winning?

Short answer? It is not.

[Guest]

The one of the "worst" president ever. If I recall, some said he was the worst president ever replacing Carter. Now, you sound like Donald Trump, who can't help himself, and uses superlatives to describe everything. President Obama certainly is divisive, but it not all of his making. To say his skin color doesn't have anything to do with it, would be wrong. The deep division in the parties certainly started with him. It will affect his legacy, and not in a good way no matter who was responsible for it. Time will either raise or lower his presidency.

US manufacturing firms moved many of their operations to China, and other countries prior to him becoming president especially high tech items. He is trying to promoted trade in Asia with the fast track legislation, that he just received. China shouldn't fall on his shoulders.

How can anyone respect the US, after the utter turmoil we started with the Iraq war, and what has since?

Is anyone really qualified to become president, when they first take office? A former vice president (Nixon, Truman, and the first Bush probable come closest), may come close. You have to rely on your trusted advisors. If they are unqualified, you are going to have real problems.

Again with the superlatives. Cheney is still hanging around maybe not in Washington, but he can still get air time on Fox News. Now, there is the most untrustworthy person in or around Washington. "W" has taken the high road, since he left Washington. It would be better served, if Fox News gave him air time. Now, him I would listen to.

[Guest]

The one of the "worst" president ever. If I recall, some said he was the worst president ever replacing Carter. Now, you sound like Donald Trump, who can't help himself, and uses superlatives to describe everything. President Obama certainly is divisive, but it not all of his making. To say his skin color doesn't have anything to do with it, would be wrong. The deep division in the parties certainly started with him. It will affect his legacy, and not in a good way no matter who was responsible for it. Time will either raise or lower his presidency.

US manufacturing firms moved many of their operations to China, and other countries prior to him becoming president especially high tech items. He is trying to promoted trade in Asia with the fast track legislation, that he just received. China shouldn't fall on his shoulders.

How can anyone respect the US, after the utter turmoil we started with the Iraq war, and what has since?

Is anyone really qualified to become president, when they first take office? A former vice president (Nixon, Truman, and the first Bush probable come closest), may come close. You have to rely on your trusted advisors. If they are unqualified, you are going to have real problems.

Again with the superlatives. Cheney is still hanging around maybe not in Washington, but he can still get air time on Fox News. Now, there is the most untrustworthy person in or around Washington. "W" has taken the high road, since he left Washington. It would be better served, if Fox News gave him air time. Now, him I would listen to.

[Guest]

Each member of congress was handed a copy of the Iran agreement over this past week-end. They now have 90 days to read, digest, research and then vote on the agreement. During that 90 day period, they will be on recess the month of August, returning to their districts to hold town hall meetings to hear from their constituents.

Let your congressperson know what you think after carefully reading the agreement in full.

As the president has said there are three choices; the agreement, no agreement or war.


Correction: should be 60 days not 90 days in the above post.

The United Nations Security Council has just voted unanimously to accept the Iran deal.

[Guest]

My bad. I didn't mean to repeat myself. I thought once you posted a reply, it disappeared off your screen.

[Guest]

Correction: should be 60 days not 90 days in the above post.

The United Nations Security Council has just voted unanimously to accept the Iran deal.

Oh well hell that endorsement makes it valid.......another politically motivated paid for by USA, change/do nothing entity.

[Guest]

Each member of congress was handed a copy of the Iran agreement over this past week-end. They now have 90 days to read, digest, research and then vote on the agreement. During that 90 day period, they will be on recess the month of August, returning to their districts to hold town hall meetings to hear from their constituents.

Let your congressperson know what you think after carefully reading the agreement in full.

As the president has said there are three choices; the agreement, no agreement or war.

As usual, the "President" sets up a straw man.

The obvious option ... keep the sanctions in place and tighten the screws. But, Obama is under the delusion that Iran can/will/wants to be our friend.

If nothing else, we now know that Obama leans to the Shia vs Sunni ...that's helpful.

[Guest]

As usual, the "President" sets up a straw man.

The obvious option ... keep the sanctions in place and tighten the screws. But, Obama is under the delusion that Iran can/will/wants to be our friend.

If nothing else, we now know that Obama leans to the Shia vs Sunni ...that's helpful.

Of course they are. See below:

Iran: (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-we-will-trample-upon-america/)

[Guest]

As many have said, many times and ignored by the USA, this deal WILL FOR SURE UPSET THE REGION AND MAKE IT MORE UNSTEADY. The only question is when it will come to fruition...during the obvious nuclear race that will now begin to beat Iran to the bomb or when....

"In the first public criticism of the P5+Iran deal by a member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, Prince Bandar bin Sultan told Lebanon’s Daily Star the deal would allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb and would “wreak havoc in the region." Covered in The Times of London, the prince also told Daily Star, "Saudi Arabia and the Gulf powers are prepared to take military action without American support after the Iran nuclear deal"

Iran and Saudi Arabia are the two leading players in the Sunni/Shia divide and are competing for leadership of the Muslim world. The Sunni Islam Saudi Arabian monarchy fears that the Shia Islam Iranians will employ terrorists in an attempt topple the monarchy and the ruling House of Saud. "

"The Prince also said that regional powers have lost faith in America:

“People in my region now are relying on God’s will, and consolidating their local capabilities and analysis with everybody else except our oldest and most powerful ally”

Saudi Prince Threatens 'Military Action Without American Support' Against Iran | MRCTV (http://www.mrctv.org/blog/saudi-prince-even-after-deal-military-action-against-iran-still-table-or-without-us#.mv0voy:o8Ye)