Golden turban award

[Guest]

And the golden turban award goes to this President for his betrayal of America in making a deal with the Devil. They are celebrating in the streets of Iran now. Just a matter of time before we are nuked. Our poor kids and grandkids. We are doomed now. What a disgrace and how stupid and naive are liberals for voting this monster in office too late now, its over. Adios America

[Guest]

All day the media is doing high fives and Obama as predicted on camera as soon as he woke up this morning.

I heard a lot about what the Iranians get out of the deal...billions in assets unfrozen.....2 million barrels of oil per day (times $50per barrel....nice).....non nuclear weapons purchase and development to name a few.

I am still waiting to hear what it is we got out of the deal.

This deal does not sound like it has the welfare of the USA and saftey of it's people in the equation. The majority of the world takes a step backward.

Rather than the usual name calling maybe the supporters have been given privvy information regarding what we got out of the deal....to share with us.

[Guest]

Here is one of my concerns......Rep Donald Beyer (D) says he will support this deal because in his words....."Thanks to the Obama administration’s negotiations, Iran’s nuclear program will be under lock, key and camera 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. " Why I'll vote in favor of the Iran nuclear deal | MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-ill-vote-favor-the-iran-nuclear-deal).

HOWEVER, from what I read....."As part of the deal announced Tuesday morning, Iran could have up to 24 days warning of an inspection from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is far from the snap inspections some in Congress had been demanding." Iran inspections could be sticking point for Democrats in nuke deal | Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iran-inspections-could-be-sticking-point-for-dems/article/2568241)

It is implausible to me that an American President can be so involved in such a deal....prior to the deal being finalized, an article appeared in POLITICO Magazine citing the involvement of Putin.

". In his remarks in the Rose Garden, President Obama declared Tehran had agreed to precisely that. “If Iran cheats, the world will know,” he said.
Yet weapons inspectors can be no tougher than the body that empowers them—in this instance the UN Security Council. And herein lies the agreement’s fundamental weakness—and perhaps its fatal flaw. Do we really want to depend on Vladimir Putin? Because Russia will be able to decide what to enforce in any deal—and what not to.


Read more: The Iran Deal (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/iran-deal-kerry-flawed-negotiations-close-116623.html#ixzz3fuS5dZUw)

Russia and China and France will gain so much in weaponry contracts, and if these reports on inspections are close to true, how could he do this ?

Of course we have not heard the details yet, so gotta wait, but frankly I do not trust this President to tell the truth thus I hope we really dig out the details and let us know.

Of course, he has put us into a situation where we are screwed either way. This resembles the OBAMACARE deal. We will never ever be able to put this back in the bottle. If the vote is not acceptable, then he vetoes (he already said that), then even if most democrats wised up, how do you back out of deal then especially with Russia and China involved. This is precisely why in the past we stayed out of these negotiations. I think we are screwed.

Next thing I was struck by early on is Kerry's remarks that "this is a nuclear deal
'" Why then did we allow the arms embargo to go away and enrich Russia who has been and will supply them.

Also, what is a mute point to me is....what is the alternative....that seems to be the old rhetoric we hear lots of times...a Saul Alinsky tactic.....the alternative is to add more sanctions, insist of demolition of all nuclear possibilities, allow total inspections and maybe.

If I sound negative, I am sorry. I will surely read but these are my first impressions, plus no word on 5 prisoners of the USA in Iran. I am really depressed about this.

[Guest]

Still no clear indication of what the USA gained as a result of the "deal".

Other than Barry and Kerry bragging rights.

He is determined to achieve certain of his personal need objectives even if they in no way resemble what it was he was expressing. He would still call it the same and claim and brag about the good HE has brought.

Remember when the ACA was having trouble getting through congress. He openly told Pelosi to get "something" approved by his dealine, what ever it takes to get it.

Words and word smithing lawyer trained letter of the law user abuser....in short....a liar!

[Guest]

Here is what the US got... With no deal, which is the alternative to this deal, Iran is within an estimated 12 months, perhaps a bit longer, of obtaining the ability to build a thermonuclear device. That is the option you get, or you take this deal. If you refuse this deal then what is your alternative? Do you want war number 3 in the middle east? Do you want the Israeli government to be our secret agents and to do the bombing? Do you want US ground troops to march on Tehran? Or do you just want to hate Obama enough to see Iran get the bomb?

No deal was going to be 100% of what I want or you want. It is a negotiated agreement. It was entered to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It was their progress toward that weapon which caused the sanctions to be applied. In exchange for no progress and in fact a decrease in Iran's ability, the world will lift sanctions. There will be inspections and you well know we have plenty of spies human or electronic that will continue to gather information between inspections, as we have been getting information now with NO inspections. If we reject this negotiation when every other involved in the negotiation nation accepts it is that because we are "tough" or because we are foolish? We negotiated with the USSR to reduce bombs, and reduced ours with limited inspections. I think that was Mr. Reagan?

If this deal postpones the development of nuclear weapons in Iran by 10 or 20 years, that is a very successful outcome. When Iran gets a bomb, so will the Saudis. This gives time for the government of Iran to mature. We can only hope that it does not become radicalized as have so many others in that region.

[Guest]

I will admit that I sometimes need simple language to understand all of this political jargon, etc. In stating that, I get this cultural commentary in my email daily and find it a bit easier to understand than some others. This one came today regarding the Iran treaty. He states why making a treaty with Iran versus with another country cannot be compared as one poster previously did, among other thoughts about the treaty. Just putting it out there for comment -

Iran treaty: 4 predictions (http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=5369bb601ac44bfdda928110b&id=7d123cd806&e=fdcd7168bb)

It is a rather simplistic commentary (easy read), but hopefully will help others who may be like me to engage in the conversation.

[Guest]

Here is what the US got... With no deal, which is the alternative to this deal, Iran is within an estimated 12 months, perhaps a bit longer, of obtaining the ability to build a thermonuclear device. That is the option you get, or you take this deal. If you refuse this deal then what is your alternative? Do you want war number 3 in the middle east? Do you want the Israeli government to be our secret agents and to do the bombing? Do you want US ground troops to march on Tehran? Or do you just want to hate Obama enough to see Iran get the bomb?

No deal was going to be 100% of what I want or you want. It is a negotiated agreement. It was entered to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It was their progress toward that weapon which caused the sanctions to be applied. In exchange for no progress and in fact a decrease in Iran's ability, the world will lift sanctions. There will be inspections and you well know we have plenty of spies human or electronic that will continue to gather information between inspections, as we have been getting information now with NO inspections. If we reject this negotiation when every other involved in the negotiation nation accepts it is that because we are "tough" or because we are foolish? We negotiated with the USSR to reduce bombs, and reduced ours with limited inspections. I think that was Mr. Reagan?

If this deal postpones the development of nuclear weapons in Iran by 10 or 20 years, that is a very successful outcome. When Iran gets a bomb, so will the Saudis. This gives time for the government of Iran to mature. We can only hope that it does not become radicalized as have so many others in that region.

A VERY optimistic view, and I can understand it.

I really need to see all the details, but first glance, here are my concerns...

1. As with the Affordablr Care Act, where we were told one thing (open, public debate, etc.) we are "in a corner". No matter what the deal is or isn't, we have no choice now. While the President tacitly implied that he would listen to Congress, and allow them to "approve". That seems to have gone by the wayside suddenly, and we are told about vetoing, and the other countries involved.

2. Relative to those other countries. EVERY SINGLE ONE HAS MUCH TO GAIN FROM THIS DEAL. Of course, especially the Russians and Chinese, although France and Europe are salivating at what they are now going to get, but Russia and China just hit the jackpot.

3. From first discussions, the ability to check on this country, an "experienced" and canny foe at getting around any inspections, is not close to what we were told.

4. War is what most on the left say that the right wants. That is not even close to true. The sanctions were working, and instead of telling them they can have nukes in the future as we have, escalating the sanctions and requiring TOTAL disclosure and TOTAL elimination would seem to me to be in play. Remember and notice how a similiar deal with North Korea is working.

5. We turned our backs on Israel. That speaks volumes to me. No longer can we tell them that we have their back.

Listen, I see your point of view. but this represents a very big and serious gamble.

[Guest]

A gamble would imply an uncertainty to outcome.
That does not exist here.
Iranians chanting death to America......top Iranian ground force general making public statement that regardless what agreement is made America is the enemy.

Verification? What a joke. Random inspectin of nuclear facilities..........with a 14 day notice. Now who in their right mind but a Barry or a Kerry would think that is a good faith agreement. The Iranians could build and hide any and everything they don't want the stupid Americans to know or find.

We get told of negotiations......the Iranians get told of what they dictated they got.........in between the belly laughing.

If the Iranians can today have a bomb in 3 months time what makes anybody think that will change.

[Guest]

It is so good to know there are so many knowledgeable and experienced foreign affairs negotiators here in The Villages - as well as nuclear scientists.

I had no idea that former insurance salesmen, truck drivers, and corporate mid-managers had the credentials to qualify for those State Dept positions. Gee, maybe that would have been a better career path - since the unfunded pensions are guaranteed for life!

[Guest]

It is so good to know there are so many knowledgeable and experienced foreign affairs negotiators here in The Villages - as well as nuclear scientists.

I had no idea that former insurance salesmen, truck drivers, and corporate mid-managers had the credentials to qualify for those State Dept positions. Gee, maybe that would have been a better career path - since the unfunded pensions are guaranteed for life!

I am a bit insulted by this post frankly.

What you are saying is that, just get out of the way.....the politicians have got it right and we should not comment as just plain old american citizens. I do not agree with that premise.

OR maybe you mean that only applies with this President or some party in power.

That is a dismissive statement that has not merit.......everyday americans who discuss politics or economics are allowed to have opinions, despite your smart aleck remarks.

This is when I wish we could tell who is posting. This is a wise guy or girl and nothing more. This is a comment made when your opinion is critiqued and these same people will critique someone else and that is fine.

This forum, because of people like this is very tiring....

ADMIN, please allow names to be posted so we know who the wise guys are and can ignore who we want. This seems to be part of the group that takes conversations from here and repeats with their own spin on Topix (haven't checked lately but usually a discussion on other posters takes place there).
I know ADMIN just does not want to deal with all the complaints, but if we knew who the wise a**e* were we could just ignore them and what ever they say

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1087437]I am a bit insulted by this post frankly.

What you are saying is that, just get out of the way.....the politicians have got it right and we should not comment as just plain old american citizens. I do not agree with that premise.

OR maybe you mean that only applies with this President or some party in power.

That is a dismissive statement that has not merit.......everyday americans who discuss politics or economics are allowed to have opinions, despite your smart aleck remarks.QUOTE]

If I were you, I would think of those at the Vienna conferences as seasoned negotiators and not as politicans. Most have spent their careers doing similar work in some capacity.

Allow the negotiators the credit for their vast experience. People outside of your area of expertise during your work career were not criticizing every aspect of your job, were they? You knew what worked best and did an admirable job. These negotiators know what is best in the long run for our country.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=Guest;1087437]I am a bit insulted by this post frankly.

What you are saying is that, just get out of the way.....the politicians have got it right and we should not comment as just plain old american citizens. I do not agree with that premise.

OR maybe you mean that only applies with this President or some party in power.

That is a dismissive statement that has not merit.......everyday americans who discuss politics or economics are allowed to have opinions, despite your smart aleck remarks.QUOTE]

If I were you, I would think of those at the Vienna conferences as seasoned negotiators and not as politicans. Most have spent their careers doing similar work in some capacity.

Allow the negotiators the credit for their vast experience. People outside of your area of expertise during your work career were not criticizing every aspect of your job, were they? You knew what worked best and did an admirable job. These negotiators know what is best in the long run for our country.

See I am having trouble figuring out what point you make. Of corse what you say is accurate, but you can make the same statement concerning any facet of foreign relations and actually any mechanism in government.

Thus, are you suggesting that American citizens just shut up and not voice opinions ?

Nobody would make the claim that they know better, but all have opinions. My baseball days came to an ended a few years after high school, but to this day I have strong feelings on baseball.

If we are just to shut up and accept this deal, then should that not apply to any government actions by any party ?

I listened closely to the President today. He made good points. There are more questions I have and some are already posted here, but I never even came remotely close to even suggesting that those negotiating were any less than honorable.

I just am not sure of your point here. I never spoke in congress about budgets, but have an opinion..please just explain your point...why would this issue be so different to any other ?

[Guest]

Of course, express your ideas and views. You seem to keep your remarks very reasonable rather than some others.

The point is that we do have to rely on these professional negotiators for expertise in very sensitive issues. It is not a party line that determines what is best for the country. Sometimes concessions that are unpopular have to be struck so the best deal comes to fruition. That is why it is called negotiating.

[Guest]

Of course, express your ideas and views. You seem to keep your remarks very reasonable rather than some others.

The point is that we do have to rely on these professional negotiators for expertise in very sensitive issues. It is not a party line that determines what is best for the country. Sometimes concessions that are unpopular have to be struck so the best deal comes to fruition. That is why it is called negotiating.

Sorry but some of us do not view in the least that Obama and Kerry are professional negotiators.
Far from it....they are politicians.....nothing more.

A political solution is far from a best deal merely because it is a political.....and we all know politicians do not do what is best. They do what is best in their interest....in this case Barry and Kerry!

[Guest]

Not a good or best deal.
Obama is trying to be friends with a sworn enemy.
Iran is taking everything they can get in return for making it look like they are Obama's friend.

Not a negotiation at all.