Nixing the Iran agreement

[Guest]

Maybe we can expound on the three choice presented by the Iran agreement in another post, agreement, no agreement, or war.

If Congress agrees with it by not overriding the veto, then the conversation ends there.

No agreement. Tom Cotton wants us to go back to the negotiation table, and make a better deal. That is totally unrealistic. The UN Security Counsel has approved the deal 15-0. The European alliance has removed oil against Iran, which was hurting their economies. Russia, and China probably won't accept any further sanctions against Iran, unless Iran violates the agreement. England, and France like the agreement. If Congress overrides the veto, we will be standing alone.

If Congress overrides the veto, they have to put forward what the acceptable alternative is. We do not have to live up to the agreement, but why should Iran care, what we do, if we are the only ones that object to the agreement. Once the agreement was reached by the P5 plus one, it was a pretty much a done deal.

So, the Republicans should do what they do best, bitch forever about Obama's irresponsible actions, and never but never offer an alternative. They have so cover on this one, because Democrats will have to go against their president to override the veto.

Talk about Obama's legacy. It will be enhanced, if all other countries abide by the agreement, and it works. Obama will have a "big I told you so".

War. Is not an alternative for us. However, Israel is another story.

[Guest]

Very good post.

There are not enough votes to over ride a Presidential veto. Congress could not come up with a better deal.

Look at the Republicans trying to undo the ACA. 40 times and they still failed. And the Republicans never came up with an alternative. Just the Party of No.

[Guest]

And then of course there is the option taken off the table by the president to ramp up what was working, ie. The sanctions and insist on total dismantling.

[Guest]

Dont expect the GOP to come up with an alternative---did they come up with another health care plan? Nope! This is "too hot" for anything but the old Partisian politics. It's very predicable.

[Guest]

Dont expect the GOP to come up with an alternative---did they come up with another health care plan? Nope! This is "too hot" for anything but the old Partisian politics. It's very predicable.

How idiotic is it to depict this as partisan politics? That's exactly what you are doing.

The issue here is risk of war with a nuclear armed Iran and putting the US at risk long term which is what this does. Our generation skates by .... our kids and grandkids are the ones that suffer thanks to Obama / Kerry fecklessness and weak minded approach to realpolitik. God help us (sorry if the word God offends anyone :) )

[Guest]

How idiotic is it to depict this as partisan politics? That's exactly what you are doing.

The issue here is risk of war with a nuclear armed Iran and putting the US at risk long term which is what this does. Our generation skates by .... our kids and grandkids are the ones that suffer thanks to Obama / Kerry fecklessness and weak minded approach to realpolitik. God help us (sorry if the word God offends anyone :) )

It appears to me, and many others, especially on this forum that what is good for our country is trumped every time by what looks good politically. Those in this forum do not read, do not understand and they debunk any and all that might even look bad politically.

I suppose, when discussing pure politics that might play, but international affairs is much too serious to be rendered as what party looks what way.

[Guest]

President Obama, and John Kerry know the political in fight that is going on between the parties in the US. Maybe they should have brought in a responsible Republican in the negotiations with Iran. It couldn't have hurt any, and the Republicans would know what was obtainable, and what was not. If Republicans can't trust one of their own, what can you do? It wouldn't have stopped this legacy nonsense that comes up with everything President Obama does, but this would have almost guaranteed a veto proof agreement.

One of the things that the Republicans did bring up on the ACA was letting health insurance carriers cross state line. Competition would drive down insurance rates. that might have helped the people that have insurance, but do very little for people that can't afford it.

One change that should be acceptable to both parties is remove the penalty for not having insurance for people that live in states that didn't accept Medicaid funds. These people seem to be punished twice for the same crime.

[Guest]

And then of course there is the option taken off the table by the president to ramp up what was working, ie. The sanctions and insist on total dismantling.

Thank you very much. I just wonder why this was not option number one on the list?

Why is it not even discussed here or in the media or addressed by Obama or the WH as an option.

And for those ready to pounce, do not try the fable that it wasn't working.
Of course it was working. Along with more strict sanctions would eventually force the Iranians hand.

But this option of course does not allow Obam or his minions to make it look like he was able to extend the magic olive branch and be friends around the camp fire singing Koom by yah! And then being able to say see....we can make progress.....and of course the sanctions would not follow his legacy time table.

Another forced fit Obama ram rod personal gain issue, sucked up by the gullibles.

[Guest]

Why it so hard for Republicans to understand that we weren't working alone in stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? The sanctions that were relieved to get Iran to the bargaining table weren't that great.

Everything isn't about President Obama. Everything that he is doing isn't wrong. Maybe the Republicans in Congress can get off their asses from the cheap seats, and offer solutions to the current problems. Criticize, condemn, and complain is all they think they are required to do. They are getting standing ovations from their supporters for doing nothing. They should all feel so proud for doing what comes naturally. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.

[Guest]

Why it so hard for Republicans to understand that we weren't working alone in stopping Iran from getting a nuclear bomb? The sanctions that were relieved to get Iran to the bargaining table weren't that great.

Everything isn't about President Obama. Everything that he is doing isn't wrong. Maybe the Republicans in Congress can get off their asses from the cheap seats, and offer solutions to the current problems. Criticize, condemn, and complain is all they think they are required to do. They are getting standing ovations from their supporters for doing nothing. They should all feel so proud for doings what comes naturally. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull****.

Why! Democrats didn't do nothing when they had both. Even if they did offer solutions obummer would just veto. MMMmmm, sounds just like liberal democrat. Blame blame blame.

[Guest]

Why! Democrats didn't do nothing when they had both. Even if they did offer solutions obummer would just veto. MMMmmm, sounds just like liberal democrat. Blame blame blame.


Obama didn't need to he had dingy Harry to can the house solutions, didn't even make it to the senate floor for vote. Some of the best known liars are democrats Harry Reid nod his lobbying family was the Kings.

[Guest]

Some Republicans here really do live in alternative universe. In June, 2010, the UN, which I think we were a member then, issued the harsh sanctions that brought Iran to the bargaining table. I could be wrong, 2009 and 2010 the Democrats did control both parts of Congress. I might have missed it, but I don't remember the President's veto being overridden by Congress in 2009-2010.

Now, I fully understand why Republicans think we were the only ones working on an agreement with Iran. They don't inhabit the same world that we currently live in. In their world, the Republican party is all knowing, all seeing, and never wrong. Offer an alternative, why? People in the real world are so far beneath us, we don't have the time to explain anything to them. They would never understand anything we say anyway. So, talking to this lower form of life is just a waste of our time.

If Democrats didn't do anything of substance in 2009-2010, why is ACA such a problem? Maybe they didn't do anything in 2009-2010, because Mitch McConnell, the filibuster king, stopped everything from going anywhere. Why? It was a matter of principle. Again, Republicans are never wrong. Even considering anything the Democrats proposed was just wasting their time. The only time that Democrats are welcomed in our world is when they pick up our garbage. Reality! Reality! Reality!

[Guest]

Some Republicans here really do live in alternative universe. In June, 2010, the UN, which I think we were a member then, issued the harsh sanctions that brought Iran to the bargaining table. I could be wrong, 2009 and 2010 the Democrats did control both parts of Congress. I might have missed it, but I don't remember the President's veto being overridden by Congress in 2009-2010.

Now, I fully understand why Republicans think we were the only ones working on an agreement with Iran. They don't inhabit the same world that we currently live in. In their world, the Republican party is all knowing, all seeing, and never wrong. Offer an alternative, why? People in the real world are so far beneath us, we don't have the time to explain anything to them. They would never understand anything we say anyway. So, talking to this lower form of life is just a waste of our time.

If Democrats didn't do anything of substance in 2009-2010, why is ACA such a problem? Maybe they didn't do anything in 2009-2010, because Mitch McConnell, the filibuster king, stopped everything from going anywhere. Why? It was a matter of principle. Again, Republicans are never wrong. Even considering anything the Democrats proposed was just wasting their time. The only time that Democrats are welcomed in our world is when they pick up our garbage. Reality! Reality! Reality!


Nicely stated, but anyone who has been paying attention for the past six years knows that President Obama always gets his way; ie ACA, TPA, etc. Republicans jump up and down, bedwetting and setting their hair on fire, while Obama continues to give them just enough rope to hang themselves.

Do not bet against this president as he is just getting fired up and ready to go in his final year and a half.

[Guest]

Nicely stated, but anyone who has been paying attention for the past six years knows that President Obama always gets his way; ie ACA, TPA, etc. Republicans jump up and down, bedwetting and setting their hair on fire, while Obama continues to give them just enough rope to hang themselves.

Do not bet against this president as he is just getting fired up and ready to go in his final year and a half.

And royally :censored: up the country while padding his and his first lady's needs to continue their racist endeavors where they left off before suckering some Americans into putting him in office.

Yup be proud of the administration that accelerated the demise of the America most of us know and love and defend.

[Guest]

Nicely stated, but anyone who has been paying attention for the past six years knows that President Obama always gets his way; ie ACA, TPA, etc. Republicans jump up and down, bedwetting and setting their hair on fire, while Obama continues to give them just enough rope to hang themselves.

Do not bet against this president as he is just getting fired up and ready to go in his final year and a half.

This post has strayed so very far from reality it is not even close.

I will not defend the Republican Party in any way, but to present AS FACT that they could do one single thing during the periods mentions. You ignore the complete and total destruction of all Senate procedures by Harry Reid, and talk as if the Democratic Party in congress would do anything to upset this President; a president and Senate head who both have the reputation of taking names and getting even.

You know, the more I hear from those of you who just do not care about any facts and change history to fit your needs, the more I am liking Trump.

And be proud of your President who is a great politician, but a lousy leader, a terrible state and despite my stated feelings about his character being beyond reproach, I now question that evaluation. Playing games is not leadership...telling lies, and someone said on here in the last day or so in defending him, that they were not lies, but some things did not work out as he said.

No way, they were lies, and despite the revisionist history that you try to run here, it is slowly unraveling.

The most recent Iran trickery with the UN makes those in the party proud, but the world sees what he did. The Saudi's now jump ship joined by many others in the ME.

His legacy,of which they say is important to him, will eventually shine through. His,lies,once he no longer has the hammer will be, not exposed..they already are, but will become validated as people become able to speak freely.

[Guest]

I heard everything that you just said. Now, bring us back reality. What is the alternative now? Do you really think if we bring back sanctions on our own, Iran really cares? I don't want to hear about 10 or 15 years from now. I want to here about now.

If this Iran deal works without us, the Republicans are going to be the liars. Their obstruction will be used by future parties on what not what to do.

Again, the world sees what he did. We keep on coming back to the fact that the US was the only ones negotiating a deal with Iran. Since when doesn't the UN represent the world? If I was trying to make an argument that the Republicans live in an alternative universe, your comment of the world, as you see it, makes the case. Hatred of this president makes everything that he does completely wrong. That can't be the case. Why would anyone floating in the middle of road, wherever that is now, listen to a word that the Republicans say? Everything is colored by their hatred. They just going looking for news outlets that back up their beliefs. Then, they turn around and call this be open minded or "fair and balanced".

If Obama is living a lie, he has plenty of company with the Republican party and their followers. I hate that conversation on this board always has to take the path of naming calling, and one upmenship.

[Guest]

O" yes let's pass it to see what's in in!

[Guest]

When this President leaves office and can no longer "come down" on his party for not cow tailing, it will be interesting. I know that every President of every party has this influence and that every president from every party has people in their party who follow them without questions...

BUT, this is a man who we know does not even speak to his party most times....I think the revelations will be amazing....but for now....

"Sen. Ron WydeSen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, said Saturday that he has concerns about the nuclear deal with Iran, adding that that he believes the Obama administration is “flouting” Congress by going to United Nations to get approval first.

“Now there was a new wrinkle in this on Friday, which concerned me, which was the administration was talking about going to the U.N. to get approval,” Wyden told a town hall audience this weekend. “I think the U.N. does some very good things, I think they do some other things not so good. But the point is going to the U.N. before the Congress weighs in is really in my view flouting the Review Act, you know the whole point…”n, amocrat from Oregon, said Saturday that he has concerns about the nuclear deal with Iran, adding that that he believes the Obama administration is “flouting” Congress by going to United Nations to get approval first.
“Now there was a new wrinkle in this on Friday, which concerned me, which was the administration was talking about going to the U.N. to get approval,” Wyden told a town hall audience this weekend. “I think the U.N. does some very good things, I think they do some other things not so good. But the point is going to the U.N. before the Congress weighs in is really in my view flouting the Review Act, you know the whole point…”

Sen. Ron Wyden On Iran Deal: Obama "Flouting" Congress By Going To U.N. First - BuzzFeed News (http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/sen-ron-wyden-on-iran-deal-obama-flouting-congress-by-going#.tknag7Eer)

[Guest]

Oh, let's criticize it before we read it. We, as Republican law makers, can't call President Obama, or John Kerry to get an idea, what the major points of the agreement are, because they have unlisted telephone numbers. We can't offer our opinions, because we have none.

The conservative heads of governments in England, France, and Germany aren't really conservatives. If they were, they wouldn't be in partnership with the communist countries of Russia, China, and soon to be US. Anyone, that can't see that President Obama wants to be Chairman Obama, isn't looking. The P5 plus one is the great left wing abomination joined together to bring an end to the world. We, as Republicans, will stop that road to extinction as soon as we get our head out of hind part.

You want sarcasm. You got sarcasm. Now, that we know that two can that game, how about offering an alternative, if you override the President's veto? Given even an attempt to do that, it is quite clear that there isn't one, or at least one coming from the Republican party.

[Guest]

The idea of the Review Act is to go into debate of an act with an open mind. Senator Ron Wyden is in the Senate obviously. The Senate does contain reasonable people from both parties. Senators may have a good reason to have their nose a little out of joint.

However, the House is a horse of a different color. Mr. Boehner showed his true colors, when he invited President Net tin yahoo (no disrespect, but my spelling really sucks) speak before a joint session of Congress. The House Republicans never had any intention of approved the agreement with Iran.

We keep on coming back to the fact that we think we are the only one that negotiated with Iran. There is a 90 day period for the UN agreement to take effect. There is a 60 day period for Congress to act. If Congress overrides the veto, we will be standing alone. So, why wait for Congress approval before getting an UN vote?

[Guest]

The idea of the Review Act is to go into debate of an act with an open mind. Senator Ron Wyden is in the Senate obviously. The Senate does contain reasonable people from both parties. Senators may have a good reason to have their nose a little out of joint.

However, the House is a horse of a different color. Mr. Boehner showed his true colors, when he invited President Net tin yahoo (no disrespect, but my spelling really sucks) speak before a joint session of Congress. The House Republicans never had any intention of approved the agreement with Iran.

We keep on coming back to the fact that we think we are the only one that negotiated with Iran. There is a 90 day period for the UN agreement to take effect. There is a 60 day period for Congress to act. If Congress overrides the veto, we will be standing alone. So, why wait for Congress approval before getting an UN vote?

Just going to give my thoughts very quickly on the entire thing which is over because that is how it is.

We had sanctions. The UN had sanctions. They were working. That is why Iran agreed to come to the table. We set parameters for those negotiations and changed each and every one of them to the benefit of Iran.

Congress wanted input. The President did not want to give it. Congress won that on a vote. Israel, the single most affected state on this thing wanted to be involved or at least have an opportunity to speak their mind. The President did not want that, thus the Speaker invited him here simply to give his opinions to the congress.

We had partners, every single one of which had very strong reasons to lift the sanctions but needed this deal to do that.

We said recently that no way would we allow the arms embargo from the UN to be lifted. Our President needed to apply pressure to the congress and thus went directly to the UN to have them lifted. They were lifted,

Thus congress is now gong to be the bad guy one way or the other and the President has what he wants......not stopping nuclear building, simply postponing. ALL the neighbors in the region are opposed. Those who are with the US are those who will trade and make much money off the deal, including Russia.

We now have Syria looking to build up arms. Israel re looking at all their options and announcing they will not consult with the US as in the past but if they feel threatened will take unilateral action.

The terrorists in the middle east, sans ISIS so they say, are in joy. The only state in the ME that supports them now can do it openly and arm them, because remember we took that off the table because Iran asked us to.

We are screwed....those or some of those will rave about the ability of the President to box in his own congress while allowing Iran to celebrate taking us to the cleaners. He wanted the deal, despite caving on every requirement he had before beginning, and he got it just as he gets it all, by manipulation and being shrewd, something we don't see much in a President when discussing foreign affairs, especially in a situation this serious.

So let the strong party democrats celebrate. Let the nuclear race begin in the ME. Let the arms flow being TO Iran from Russia. Let the money flow to Iran from France and Germany for arms and oil.

Next thing, and I am not joking will be when Iran cheats and they WILL cheat, Obama will blame someone else....not him. When the arms race begins it will be anyones fault but his.

[Guest]

Too much verbiage with no substance.
So we would stand alone. Is that supposed to be a big deal?
We are supposedly in the agreement for the impact on Iran's nuclear capabilities.
The other countries are in favor of it ONLY because once the sanctions are lifted there is gain in it for them.
Russia-weapons, China-oil to name the top advocates behind Obama.

The others in the UN follow suit because there is a gain for them as well (I really don't know or care....they are not in it for the nuclear aspect).

Some of you need to know a little more than is exhibited in the posts here to make any sensible comments about why the agreement is good or bad.
Look at it from the point of view of what is in it for America. I will bet not one of you can state any gain for the USA in this agreement.

All we get is the rah rah cheerleader section for Obama and the UN are all for it. At least that is what Obama, the WH, the media and some of you would like us to believe.

Once you understand the reality of our position and discover that nobody is in it for what YOU think they are including Iran.

I do not expect anybody to respond except with the usual party and Obama love antagonism.

And that really is a shame for you and your family members future.

[Guest]

Post 22 by me was posted while I was doing mine and now see it before my 22.....my comments of no substance do not apply to this post which is 100% on targer!!

[Guest]

Only a feckless fool could have negotiated such a dangerous, one-sided deal that guarantees a nuclear armed Iran. Too bad Trump wasn't the negotiator ... even those who can't stand him (and his hair) will have to admit he would be a MUCH more formidable presence at the negotiating table than the hopeless John Kerry

[Guest]

President Obama, and John Kerry know the political in fight that is going on between the parties in the US. Maybe they should have brought in a responsible Republican in the negotiations with Iran. It couldn't have hurt any, and the Republicans would know what was obtainable, and what was not. If Republicans can't trust one of their own, what can you do? It wouldn't have stopped this legacy nonsense that comes up with everything President Obama does, but this would have almost guaranteed a veto proof agreement.

One of the things that the Republicans did bring up on the ACA was letting health insurance carriers cross state line. Competition would drive down insurance rates. that might have helped the people that have insurance, but do very little for people that can't afford it.

One change that should be acceptable to both parties is remove the penalty for not having insurance for people that live in states that didn't accept Medicaid funds. These people seem to be punished twice for the same crime.





A "responsible Republican"?

LOL - thank you for the laugh of the day ....... bur Sarah Palin wasn't available.

LOL........

[Guest]

A "responsible Republican"?

LOL - thank you for the laugh of the day ....... bur Sarah Palin wasn't available.

LOL........

Avoidance of the subject and mocking someone is a characteristic of, I assume, having no idea of what to say to discuss, which is sad when you think of it.

We do live in the information age and so much is available, and yet so many never get off the comics page.

[Guest]

A "responsible Republican"?

LOL - thank you for the laugh of the day ....... bur Sarah Palin wasn't available.

LOL........

Character Austin Millbarge in Spies Like Us....

"We mock what we do not understand"

[Guest]

This should really make you laugh, but I am dead serious here. The responsible Republican I was thinking of was "W". This would be in the vain of Nixon, staunch anti-communist, visiting China to try to normalize relations with them. "W's" mere appearance there would give Iran the unmistakable impression that we want a deal, but we are not going to roll over for it. He was also knowledgeable on Iran.

President Obama had a news conference, where he defended the deal against all the short comings that the Republicans, Israel and the press had brought up. Reduction in uranium centrifuges, explain why the 24 waiting period wasn't a problem, UN could follow the flow of nuclear material to Iran, they would find out if Iran was building up nuclear material in other countries, some MIT nuclear professor told him nuclear material give off a detectable scent, which easily can be detected etc. He covered everything. He certainly doesn't believe he totally rollover, a deal just for the sake of a deal. If Iran cheats, President Obama won't be president, when that happens. People don't listen to him now, so why would they listen to him then?

I hope that you not applying that Iran will be selling weapons to ISIS. You know that that is not going to happen. The Muslims sects hate each other more than they hate us.

Iran will never be a nuclear threat to us. Going to war with Iran will be a lot harder than it was going to war with Iraq. Iran is one step above a third world country.

The arms flow isn't going to go from Iran directly to the terrorists. That stunt was stopped in one big hurry by our Navy, when Iran tried to send weapons to the Yemen terrorists. They will go from the seller to the terrorists, and Iran will be billed.

Not until the Republicans do a 90 not a 180 degree turn to the center, every conversation is going to have a hostile ring to it, but there is never an excuse for name calling.

[Guest]

A few tidbits from todays news on this Iran agreement....

"Iran’s ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said the nuclear inspection organization is barred from revealing to the United States any details of deals it has inked with Tehran to inspect its contested nuclear program going forward, according to regional reports.

Recent disclosures by Iran indicate that the recently inked nuclear accord includes a series of side deals on critical inspections regimes that are neither public nor subject to review by the United States."

Iran: U.S. Banned from Knowing Details of Iran Nuclear Inspection Agreement | Washington Free Beacon (http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-u-s-banned-from-knowing-details-of-iran-nuke-agreement/)

For those who object to links they do not like even though based on facts this is also available on NEWSWEEK but I do not subscribe and have used my quota.

"In a 416-page manifesto called Palestine, Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei details his view on the destruction of Israel and the deception of the US. The book, which credits Khamenei as "The flag bearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem," is only available in Iran, the NY Post revealed.

According to the Post, Khamenei quickly asserts his belief that Israel does not have a right to exist as a state. He does this by using three words: nabudi meaning annihilation, imha meaning fading out and zaval meaning effacement. The book allegedly states Khamenei's strategy for the destruction of Israel is through "well-established Islamic principles".

Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publishes book to destroy Israel and deceive US (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/irans-ayatollah-ali-khamenei-publishes-book-destroy-israel-deceive-us-1513761)

[Guest]

President is near to speaking on this treaty as he wants to convince all americans to be for it, which is far and to be expected.

Just please do not be led astray by the false and phone premise...

It is this agreement or it is war

That is really a simple pressure point and as his own folks testifying before congress agree, a very very far fetched way to present it.

Has anyone heard more on the Iranian warship pointing its guns at a US helicopter or was that an error on CNN ?

[Guest]

President Obama and Valarie Jarret are really good at this stuff I must admit...

" President Obama will deliver a crucial speech on the Iran nuclear agreement Wednesday, arguing that the congressional vote that could block the deal is "the most consequential foreign policy debate since the decision to go to war in Iraq," the White House said.

White House aides said Obama would "point out that the same people who supported war in Iraq are opposing diplomacy with Iran, and that it would be an historic mistake to squander this opportunity" to contain Iran's nuclear program.

The framing of that message appears to be a direct appeal to congressional Democrats; while some opposed the Iraq War, others came to regret their votes to authorize it. Obama will need their votes to get the one-thirds vote necessary to sustain a veto."

In speech, Obama to compare Iran deal to Iraq War vote (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/08/04/speech-obama-compares-iran-deal--iraq-war-vote/31140221/)

[Guest]

Obama's got that right...'the people that supported the Iraq war are the same ones who are against the Iran deal'. Sort of says it all.

[Guest]

My biggest concerns on this and they are big to me.....the secret deals.

"The White House said Tuesday the administration has given Congress all available documents on the Iran nuclear deal, brushing aside renewed calls from Republican lawmakers for text of “secret” side deals between Tehran and the United Nations.

“We believe we’ve produced all the materials Congress needs,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. He said the administration has satisfied terms of legislation requiring it to turn over all documents pertaining to the agreement for a 60-day congressional review."

White House rejects new GOP call to disclose 'secret' Iran nuclear agreements - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/4/wh-wont-disclose-secret-iran-nuke-agreements/)

This attitude bothers me no end....and when you read more about what the deal are about.....

"According to the IAEA, those involved with the negotiations, including the Obama administration, agreed to allow Iran to forge the secret side deals with the IAEA on two issues.

The first governs the IAEA’s inspection of the Parchin military complex, the facility long suspected as the site of Iran’s long-range ballistic-missile and nuclear-weapons development. The second addresses what—if anything—Iran will be required to disclose about the past military dimensions of its nuclear program."

Release the Secret Iran Deals - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/release-the-secret-iran-deals-1438551622)

Now, it appears that the US has no idea of what these deals encompass, yet we are to trust all of this.

I also have concerns, in the face of these secret deals, about ongoing relations with Iran.

As the President said today.....Iran will continue to fund terrorism in the area. How will the secret agreements and this pact influence any dealings with this country as they fund terrorism and arm with missles. ?

[Guest]

How about we discuss the basics of the So called "agreement"?
How could Obama allow Kerry to speak of an agreement when neither of them have any idea what is in the side agreements which the USA are excluded from knowing the contents.

Trust but verify? Political BS.

We do not know the extent of the nuclear agreements...".where we are allowed to look/verify we give them 24 days notice?!?!

How ANYBODY in good conscience think for one minute we could verify anything is along with Barry and Kerry being very dumb or naive or both.

Another let's pass it to see what is in it.

This was not a negotiation. It is a bragging right for Obama.

Would you close on a new home when after the agreement was signed you were advised and here are some side agreements that you the buyer are not allowed to know about.

Of course not.

So how could Obama insist he is on the higher ground of the issue with such unknowns? He isn't and he does not care and obviously nor do we the people.

Concern is understatement!

[Guest]

I did listen to Obama today, give his speech(?) about the agreement. I have to admit to only half listening to it, as every other word was whining about how anyone that didn't agree with him wanted a war. He also lied continuously about the details of the agreement, but no one is going to fact check him. I have to say that I have never heard another president so unprofessional and so divisive in his complaining and whining. Even Clinton learned fast, and quit complaining about the Republicans. I certainly hope that this does not set a precedent for future presidential behavior, regardless of party affiliation. As far as I am concerned, if you can't work with your subordinates then you are not a leader. Obama is definitely NOT a leader. He can hold the position, but he is a disgrace.

[Guest]

I guess you better not disagree...

"Liberals are livid at Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) decision to oppose the White House’s nuclear deal with Iran, and have threatened to launch a full-scale war as retribution.

Activists and former top officials within the Obama administration are openly contemplating whether Schumer’s stance disqualifies him from serving as the next Senate Democratic leader — which he is primed to do — and seeking to temporarily cut off money to Democrats in the upper chamber.
It’s unclear whether Schumer’s announcement will have a devastating effect on the White House’s efforts to prevent Democrats from killing the deal when it comes up for a vote in Congress next month.

But it’s clear that he will be Public Enemy No. 1 for liberal activists throughout the August recess, as they aim to rally support from Democrats on the agreement.

Liberal groups including Credo, MoveOn.org and Democracy for America are rallying supporters to flood congressional mailboxes and town halls over the course of the next month to demand lawmakers support the agreement. On Friday, they launched a new website, 60DaysToStopAWar.com, to list upcoming town halls and aid in the push. "

Fury of left falls on Schumer | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250572-liberals-go-to-war-with-schumer-for-iran-opposition)

[Guest]

A bad deal is NOT better than NO deal.

Obama's ego NEEDS a win in his corner for a historical footnote. He is better suited for television entertainment, and pathetically over his head in the White House.

We need to strengthen sanctions, cut off their money and threaten to crush them if they don't release those hostages. But, Obama is no Reagan and Kerry is an idiot.

I am sure that the Republican replacement for Obama will be smart enough to hire much better advisers. Hopefully, it won't take 8 years to repair the damage that these inept amateurs have caused.

[Guest]

And we need to back our best ally in the area, Israel.

[Guest]

I guess you better not disagree...

"Liberals are livid at Sen. Charles Schumer’s (D-N.Y.) decision to oppose the White House’s nuclear deal with Iran, and have threatened to launch a full-scale war as retribution.

Activists and former top officials within the Obama administration are openly contemplating whether Schumer’s stance disqualifies him from serving as the next Senate Democratic leader — which he is primed to do — and seeking to temporarily cut off money to Democrats in the upper chamber.
It’s unclear whether Schumer’s announcement will have a devastating effect on the White House’s efforts to prevent Democrats from killing the deal when it comes up for a vote in Congress next month.

But it’s clear that he will be Public Enemy No. 1 for liberal activists throughout the August recess, as they aim to rally support from Democrats on the agreement.

Liberal groups including Credo, MoveOn.org and Democracy for America are rallying supporters to flood congressional mailboxes and town halls over the course of the next month to demand lawmakers support the agreement. On Friday, they launched a new website, 60DaysToStopAWar.com, to list upcoming town halls and aid in the push. "

Fury of left falls on Schumer | TheHill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/250572-liberals-go-to-war-with-schumer-for-iran-opposition)

I am shocked that the Democratic party would allow it to become known that, on such an important vote, lobbyists such as MOVEON are DEMANDING votes.

THAT to me is very shocking as well as disconcerting.

[Guest]

Schumer is just posturing. He'll toe the party line when things get serious. He's the typical slimy liberal that will go along. Obama always gets his way, no exceptions. If they don't give him the vote, then he will do something illegal like writing an executive order or just blatantly disregarding congress. He still thinks he is the emperor-in-chief or king of czars.

[Guest]

Has any Republican in the Senate or House said that US, and US sanctions alone would have any great effect on Iran to get them back to the negotiation table? We should talk to our allies to have them join us. Which P5 plus one allies would these be?

Since President Obama and his staff are total fools, who in the Republican party is going to do this? When Reagan took office, our enemies thought he was out of his mind, and would do anything? What current Republican can fit the insanity mold?

If President Obama is a whiner, he has plenty of company on the Republican side to include their supporters. It appears that is what they do best, and the only thing that they do.

President Obama is great for television entertainment. Who is leading the Republicans candidates for president? The answer is a for real television entertainer.

[Guest]

Has any Republican in the Senate or House said that US, and US sanctions alone would have any great effect on Iran to get them back to the negotiation table? We should talk to our allies to have them join us. Which P5 plus one allies would these be?

Since President Obama and his staff are total fools, who in the Republican party is going to do this? When Reagan took office, our enemies thought he was out of his mind, and would do anything? What current Republican can fit the insanity mold?

If President Obama is a whiner, he has plenty of company on the Republican side to include their supporters. It appears that is what they do best, and the only thing that they do.

President Obama is great for television entertainment. Who is leading the Republicans candidates for president? The answer is a for real television entertainer.

Not sure why the party designation. BOTH parties have great concern about this deal obviously.

I realize the President has drawn party lines but even on the left are great great concerns. Basically because as he talks behind him we can see Iran positioning already.

I do not see this as a Party issue at all. HOWEVER we will see many who will make it such which is our problem,

I know you see everything through the prism of what party.....I find that a bit distasteful because I know from experience and history that no one party has all the answers. You feel differently and that is your right, but seeing this through that tweets and press releases of the left is a bad thing.

To have activist groups like MOVEON even involved in this scares me. I can see how you might be ok with that as the PARTY is your guiding light.

By your post, are YOU saying that the secret deals are fine with you, even though our President does not know what is in them ? By your post, are YOU saying you are comfortable with the leading military leader violating the UN and traveling to Russia ? By your post, are YOU comfortable knowing that IRAN WILL get the bomb..just a matter of when ? By your post, do you disregard Saudi and others who fear this is the beginning of a huge arms race ? By your post, with all the terrorism in the ME, do you feel that allowing Iran to sponsor it and give them more resources to do that is ok ?

I would really like to hear your take on the ISSUES above instead of mouthing what you are being fed by left wing websites. It is not partisan this topic.

[Guest]

I think a simple fact that separates those of us who are trully conerned and need to know from those who blindly follow what ever direction is established and of course the politicians in Washington that only have re-election and quid quo pro accomplishment in mind.

Many of us who earned their living by negotiating contracts and agreements and purchases and sales of muli millions of property and equipment.....add to that list the common sense of a majority of Americans......we all collectively cannot accept that it is OK to ignore or not know or not care what is in the side
agreements.

And it becomes especially note worthy and should raise all kinds of concerns and suspicions when America is excluded from knowing what is in the side agreements and shall not be involved in the agreed inspections.

With the concerns expressed above I would like to hear from ANY supporters of the Iran agreement why it is OK with them to not know what is in those agreements?

[Guest]

The whole agreement is crap! Why should we care about the side deals? All these deals are negotiated from a position of weakness. You can't negotiate with barbarians. They only think we are weak and laugh as they get their way.

I don't like Trump, but it is obvious that we need someone radical to snap us out of weak complacency. Perhaps it's time to hire the gunslinger to clean up the town.

[Guest]

Sen Schumer deserves quite a bit of credit.

He put our country ahead of POLITICS.

Up until I saw the POLITICAL ACTIVIST groups being used to lobby and pressure senators on the left and heard the President, I thought or was naive enough to think that each was seriously considering this deal.

IF you have political activists groups lobbying on something that they know nothing about....they just know how to twist arms.....then what do you think is the top priority here ? A good deal for America or Political gain ?

Then hearing all the remarks aimed at Sen Schumer, I begin to wonder out loud if this President even understands what he is doing.

This is not a baseball game.....not some parlor game...and he is treating it as a little political exercise.

[Guest]

One thing for sure always looking for something to justify opposition to President Obama to try to say our opposition was well founded.

The International Atomic Energy Agency does have several side agreement with Iran. There is nothing new here. It is standard operating procedure for them. If you can't trust the IAEA, who can you trust?

How were these secret agreements discovered? Tom Cotton asked IAEA, if they had private arrangements with Iran. They answered yes. Well, that was a well hidden secret! If the side arrangements were such a big deal, why not answer no? It is not like they didn't know that Tom Cotton was the author of the insane letter that he and 46 of his buddies sent to Iran before the deal was finalized.

What is the big deal with Iran military leader going to Russia? If Congress blows up this deal, he is going to live in Russia.

You have no idea at all that Iran will get an atomic bomb. When? IAEA inspectors being in Iran, is going to speed up Iran's path to the bomb? What world do you come from? Dispute all the crying, Congress knows that no American president is going to allow Iran to get an nuclear bomb. There is nothing stopping us from bombing the nuclear sites into the stone age. Breaking a deal goes both ways.

An arms race in the Middle East? Is there any country that Iran can't attack right now besides Israel? Why would they have to wait to get a nuclear weapon to attack?

The deal between P5 PLUS ONE addressed stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE WERE THE ONLY ONES IN THE DEAL WITH IRAN? All the other countries are so stupid that only the US knows what is acceptable, and what is not. My, do we think a lot of ourselves!

Since you can read me like a book, what web sites am I parroting? Who the hell are you trying to sell that this isn't a partisan issue? How many Democrats signed Tom Cotton's letter to Iran. That would be none. There is one thing for damn sure 47 Republicans aren't going to vote for the agreement. This can't be any more partisan.

Some of these clowns are saying President Obama is doing this to enhance his legacy. This agreement can go either way. If they are saying it is going to enhance his legacy, they have to think that this is a good agreement. That is simple logic. Chew on that for awhile.

[Guest]

One thing for sure always looking for something to justify opposition to President Obama to try to say our opposition was well founded.

The International Atomic Energy Agency does have several side agreement with Iran. There is nothing new here. It is standard operating procedure for them. If you can't trust the IAEA, who can you trust?

How were these secret agreements discovered? Tom Cotton asked IAEA, if they had private arrangements with Iran. They answered yes. Well, that was a well hidden secret! If the side arrangements were such a big deal, why not answer no? It is not like they didn't know that Tom Cotton was the author of the insane letter that he and 46 of his buddies sent to Iran before the deal was finalized.

What is the big deal with Iran military leader going to Russia? If Congress blows up this deal, he is going to live in Russia.

You have no idea at all that Iran will get an atomic bomb. When? IAEA inspectors being in Iran, is going to speed up Iran's path to the bomb? What world do you come from? Dispute all the crying, Congress knows that no American president is going to allow Iran to get an nuclear bomb. There is nothing stopping us from bombing the nuclear sites into the stone age. Breaking a deal goes both ways.

An arms race in the Middle East? Is there any country that Iran can't attack right now besides Israel? Why would they have to wait to get a nuclear weapon to attack?

The deal between P5 PLUS ONE addressed stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE WERE THE ONLY ONES IN THE DEAL WITH IRAN? All the other countries are so stupid that only the US knows what is acceptable, and what is not. My, do we think a lot of ourselves!

Since you can read me like a book, what web sites am I parroting? Who the hell are you trying to sell that this isn't a partisan issue? How many Democrats signed Tom Cotton's letter to Iran. That would be none. There is one thing for damn sure 47 Republicans aren't going to vote for the agreement. This can't be any more partisan.

Some of these clowns are saying President Obama is doing this to enhance his legacy. This agreement can go either way. If they are saying it is going to enhance his legacy, they have to think that this is a good agreement. That is simple logic. Chew on that for awhile.

You have attempted to answer a lot of questions in your post. It's always good to hear the other side of the debate and for that reason I appreciate your post. I wonder if you could answer one more question, as this is one that I just don't understand. Why do you think the release of hostages was not part of the deal? I'm more concerned now about what will happen to these hostages if this thing turns ugly down the road. Why not get them out beforehand, instead of keeping us all on the edge of our seats? It seems as if that was the least we could have demanded and yet we are not even getting that as part of the deal. This whole thing just felt more like a bloodletting to me rather than a negotiation and that's why I have not been for it....... JMHO. But thanks for articulating your side of the story. Comforting at least to hear some opposition without any name calling from either side :)

[Guest]

I tried this earlier in the thread but am willing to try again.

Would you buy a home without knowing and understanding the terms of the agreement?

For most of us the answer is obviously simple....it is a no!!

Further would you buy that home if it was determined the contract is acceptable however you will not know the terms, costs, payments, etc....they will be addressed in a separate agreement. And you will not know the finacial terms and are not allowed to contact the financial institutions involved.

Again for most of us the answer is a resounding NO!

Please note there is no need for poltical affiliation to buy a home or decide whether the terms of the agreement are acceptable or not.

NO DIFFERENCE regarding the Iran agreement.
How can any responsible person take a position of agreement or support for the agreement without knowing the terms of the agreement.

Just go along because of what Obama or Kerry advises one to do? Would you go along with the purchase of the house if the real estate agent advised you to go ahead and sign everything will be OK?

And all the while those who have to approve or agree with something they do not have all the information on have Obama add insult to injury, the nerve and the balls to state ANYBODY that does not go along with the agreement they are like the Islamic radical terrorists.

I for one am sick and tired of Obama, Kerry, the media and the lemmings (who also do not know the facts) blasting those of us who, on principal, will not accept on blind faith what is claimed to be in the agreement........no more than I would when buying a house.

There is no room for partisan leveraging of an unreasonable position.

[Guest]

I tried this earlier in the thread but am willing to try again.

Would you buy a home without knowing and understanding the terms of the agreement?

For most of us the answer is obviously simple....it is a no!!

Further would you buy that home if it was determined the contract is acceptable however you will not know the terms, costs, payments, etc....they will be addressed in a separate agreement. And you will not know the finacial terms and are not allowed to contact the financial institutions involved.

Again for most of us the answer is a resounding NO!

Please note there is no need for poltical affiliation to buy a home or decide whether the terms of the agreement are acceptable or not.

NO DIFFERENCE regarding the Iran agreement.
How can any responsible person take a position of agreement or support for the agreement without knowing the terms of the agreement.

Just go along because of what Obama or Kerry advises one to do? Would you go along with the purchase of the house if the real estate agent advised you to go ahead and sign everything will be OK?

And all the while those who have to approve or agree with something they do not have all the information on have Obama add insult to injury, the nerve and the balls to state ANYBODY that does not go along with the agreement they are like the Islamic radical terrorists.

I for one am sick and tired of Obama, Kerry, the media and the lemmings (who also do not know the facts) blasting those of us who, on principal, will not accept on blind faith what is claimed to be in the agreement........no more than I would when buying a house.

There is no room for partisan leveraging of an unreasonable position.

Your post is a good analogy and one with which I totally agree, but here's the sad part -

To answer your 2 questions highlighted above, although I would agree with your resounding no, there are so many people out there, whether for the reason of blind trust, ignorance, or sheer laziness, that would actually say yes to that. It's almost like a subconscious thing where they just trust the authority figure, or feel they are not intelligent enough to ask questions, or just do things out of laziness, or don't make important matters a priority due to time constraints and would rather complain after the fact. That is the constituency that many of our corrupt leaders feed off of, and unfortunately there seem to be more and more people like that all the time. The dumbing down of America, people working 2 to 3 jobs to make ends meet because of the changes in our economy, etc, all play a part in the game taking place in our country. I'm not sure what it is going to take to wake up the majority in this country!

[Guest]

One thing for sure always looking for something to justify opposition to President Obama to try to say our opposition was well founded.

The International Atomic Energy Agency does have several side agreement with Iran. There is nothing new here. It is standard operating procedure for them. If you can't trust the IAEA, who can you trust?

How were these secret agreements discovered? Tom Cotton asked IAEA, if they had private arrangements with Iran. They answered yes. Well, that was a well hidden secret! If the side arrangements were such a big deal, why not answer no? It is not like they didn't know that Tom Cotton was the author of the insane letter that he and 46 of his buddies sent to Iran before the deal was finalized.

What is the big deal with Iran military leader going to Russia? If Congress blows up this deal, he is going to live in Russia.

You have no idea at all that Iran will get an atomic bomb. When? IAEA inspectors being in Iran, is going to speed up Iran's path to the bomb? What world do you come from? Dispute all the crying, Congress knows that no American president is going to allow Iran to get an nuclear bomb. There is nothing stopping us from bombing the nuclear sites into the stone age. Breaking a deal goes both ways.

An arms race in the Middle East? Is there any country that Iran can't attack right now besides Israel? Why would they have to wait to get a nuclear weapon to attack?

The deal between P5 PLUS ONE addressed stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WE WERE THE ONLY ONES IN THE DEAL WITH IRAN? All the other countries are so stupid that only the US knows what is acceptable, and what is not. My, do we think a lot of ourselves!

Since you can read me like a book, what web sites am I parroting? Who the hell are you trying to sell that this isn't a partisan issue? How many Democrats signed Tom Cotton's letter to Iran. That would be none. There is one thing for damn sure 47 Republicans aren't going to vote for the agreement. This can't be any more partisan.

Some of these clowns are saying President Obama is doing this to enhance his legacy. This agreement can go either way. If they are saying it is going to enhance his legacy, they have to think that this is a good agreement. That is simple logic. Chew on that for awhile.

First of all, when I have said I can "read you like a book" it always revolved around your wisecracks and not a reply of any substance.

It appears that this might be of substance (ignoring the "chew on that awhile", etc) and for you to post this reply is heartening and I think great. This is what this forum is supposed to be about; the exchange of ideas, and I am proud of you,


I never objected to anything but two things on the secret deals.

First, the statements made to the public that ALL agreements would be turned over to congress without mentioning these secret deals was disingenious at best. Of course the USA government KNEW their was a side agreement and it just seems a bit phone not so say that there was one. The fact that congress needed to ask an outside body bothers me a bit.

On the secret deals, I think someone besides Wendy Sherman (who were told had a "glimpse" of them) that someone in greater authority (President, Secy of State, etc) should know what is in them. They center on Iran's military and what has been an ongoing discussion on what is really happening. The IAEA has had problems with this SPECIFIC site over years in trying to keep Iran in line, and that alone should warrant extra care. The track record of the iAEA with Iran is spotty at best and thus becomes an issue. That is not impugning the IAEA, but the fact that Iran has conned them in the past and thus it should be an issue in the future.

For me, the big deal about Iran military leader going to Russia is quite simple. IT
is against INTERNATIONAL LAW as the UN forbid him from doing just that. Not a great way to begin an era of trust. They went in secretly, thus THEY KNEW THEY WERE BREAKING THE LAW. I think that speaks to the trust we should NOT have in this country.

Obviously, or let me say I do not know, but it appears that they went to Russia looking for more ICBM's because that is what they were working on before the deal. Maybe not you, but that fact give me pause.

Two things on your statement concerning other countries in getting weapons of mass destruction.

I was under the impression that one of the purposes of the IRAN agreement was to insure the non proliferation of nuclear weapons. As a result of this deal, already Saudi Arabia announced plans to begin the process to get it done before they KNOW Iran will have theirs.

I am not sure on the second thing. They do not need to wait for a nuclear weapon to attack as you say, but since they have been saying for many years they believe in the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of both the USA and Israel, they are not looking for a "war" but total and complete annihilation.

As to the future of Iran getting the weapon. The entire idea of all the sanctions was to not allow them in anyway at anytime. This deal allows that they CAN have them but under guidelines relative to time. Thus THEY WILL HAVE THEM and it is just a matter of time. That is the essence of the deal by the way.

As to the to the other countries, please read some foreign press. For example, the French prime minister is on record as saying he did not think the deal was strong enough and he was pressured into the agreement. This was a US run deal and if you look at the other parties, especially Russia, has so much to gain. Russia will be supplying arms and getting oil and all others want Iran as a trade partner.

Finally, while you at least for once are addressing real issues and that is great your attack mode has not changed. You were obviously angry and as to what sites you read, I have no idea. BUT, I assume you are okay with POLITICAL ACTIVIST groups being involved in pressuring Democrats ???? And while not accusing you because did not check the details, but much of what you say is also a talking point of MOVEON

But I have "chewed on that" did not return your "clown" adjective which you used and your mentioning of Tom Cotton, as one of your allies does a lot tells me a lot.

But I WOULD prefer not to ruin a great post by you in making some good points and it is appreciated. Lot better than the one liners as it will make people take notice and read and investigate.

Thank you and keep it up.

[Guest]

Your post is a good analogy and one with which I totally agree, but here's the sad part -

To answer your 2 questions highlighted above, although I would agree with your resounding no, there are so many people out there, whether for the reason of blind trust, ignorance, or sheer laziness, that would actually say yes to that. It's almost like a subconscious thing where they just trust the authority figure, or feel they are not intelligent enough to ask questions, or just do things out of laziness, or don't make important matters a priority due to time constraints and would rather complain after the fact. That is the constituency that many of our corrupt leaders feed off of, and unfortunately there seem to be more and more people like that all the time. The dumbing down of America, people working 2 to 3 jobs to make ends meet because of the changes in our economy, etc, all play a part in the game taking place in our country. I'm not sure what it is going to take to wake up the majority in this country!

Excellent and unfortunately a too accurate assessment.
I think it is the fundamental reason our method of government, by representation has by default deteriorated to our so called representatives in Washington do as they see fit as they get at best minimal direction from those who voted them into office.

Add to the apathy of we the people the powerful presence of lobbyists, special interest and minority groups get much of the attention and focus of our so called representatives.

I had not viewed that a significant percentage of we the people fit the model you describe above. I stand corrected in my thinking. There are those, especially those participating in the government support (welfare, food stamps, forgiving loans, etc, etc) are quite content to have Washington continue forever. Eventually their numbers will dwarf those of us who disagree with the current status and where this form of government is taking our America.

Once those dependent upon Washington becomes the majority there is no hope of ever going back.

So I too keep hoping there is still time to wake up the majority while we still have it. I am concerned that there is anything that will inspire this group to action.

[Guest]

Sen Schumer deserves quite a bit of credit.

He put our country ahead of POLITICS.

Up until I saw the POLITICAL ACTIVIST groups being used to lobby and pressure senators on the left and heard the President, I thought or was naive enough to think that each was seriously considering this deal.

IF you have political activists groups lobbying on something that they know nothing about....they just know how to twist arms.....then what do you think is the top priority here ? A good deal for America or Political gain ?

Then hearing all the remarks aimed at Sen Schumer, I begin to wonder out loud if this President even understands what he is doing.

This is not a baseball game.....not some parlor game...and he is treating it as a little political exercise.

One thing Shummer didn't do was put his country first! Many of his votes come from jewish voters. He is putting his career (Reid is retiring...thank God) and party ahead of America. The same with the Republicans. I will vote for anyone, no matter what party affiliation, that puts country first!!!!!!
:popcorn:

[Guest]

One thing Shummer didn't do was put his country first! Many of his votes come from jewish voters. He is putting his career (Reid is retiring...thank God) and party ahead of America. The same with the Republicans. I will vote for anyone, no matter what party affiliation, that puts country first!!!!!!
:popcorn:

IS he not elected to represent his constituents ? Is the deal not anti Jewish ?

Seems that makes him doing the right thing.

I do not think he was elected to cave to political pressure

[Guest]

I am intrigued by Sen Schumer's stance on this deal and will withhold my opinion about him until I see how this plays out. It would be great to see more of these legislators step outside of their political boxes and do and stand for the right thing. I don't care what party they are affiliated with, if they do that, they will have my vote. I can only hope that both parties are getting the message that the masses are fed up with party politics and party loyalties - more independent thinking on both sides of the aisle will be required to change the mess that we are currently in.

[Guest]

IS he not elected to represent his constituents ? Is the deal not anti Jewish ?

Seems that makes him doing the right thing.

I do not think he was elected to cave to political pressure

Exactly, but he probably will. Some of them like to posture for the votes, and still vote contrary to their constituents. What are you going to do? I've seen his past performance so I wouldn't trust him.

[Guest]

I am angry. I parrot the left wing press. You know this how? I don't know who Moveon is? I have never intentionally read or listened to anything that they have said.

I have a problem with Black Lives Matter. Plain and simple, they are racists. The easiest response to these people is tell them to vote Republican. You don't engage people, whose sole purpose is to shout you down.

But I have "chewed on that" did not return your "clown" adjective which you used and your mentioning of Tom Cotton, as one of your allies does a lot tells me a lot. I am sorry Tom Cotton is one of my allies. Where did that come from, and what did it tell you? What Tom Cotton and the 46 Republicans did with the letter to Iran is unforgiveable. You don't try to nix the deal before it is even made.

Read foreign press. How about England? The prime minister had no problem with the agreement. You just pick the press (domestic and foreign) that supports your thinking. All other press doesn't exist, or should be completely ignored because they are biased.

If the IAEA has had problems in dealing with Iran in the past, maybe the side agreements were to avoid having the same problems in the future. The Republicans were never going to vote for the agreement. By using the word secret side agreements, they are trying to give impression that the IAEA has some sinister ploy with Iran.

I am a moderate Independent. The reason that I may sound liberal is the Republicans have so far to the right they are off the grid. I don't get angry. I never have, and never will. The person that I will vote for in the primary is John Kasich. He certainly didn't disappoint me in the first debate.

I did tone down this post.

[Guest]

The reason that the four hostages weren't included in the deal with Iran is Iran would probably have looked for a concession in the deal to free the hostages. The agreement was hard enough to begin with. By adding anything to it might have made it impossible.

[Guest]

Almost every one of the Euopean and Asian countries hat vote for the agreement have substantial gains to be realized when the sanctions are lifted from Iran.

So those who like to point to our "allies" and have us learn from them should review the details of why they signed.

They were not driven by the political rhetoric coming out of Washington.....while they would all say they want the nuclear controls the agreement brings (:1rotfl::1rotfl:) so they say to Obama to puff him up and then :1rotfl: behind him.

[Guest]

I am angry. I parrot the left wing press. You know this how? I don't know who Moveon is? I have never intentionally read or listened to anything that they have said.

I have a problem with Black Lives Matter. Plain and simple, they are racists. The easiest response to these people is tell them to vote Republican. You don't engage people, whose sole purpose is to shout you down.

But I have "chewed on that" did not return your "clown" adjective which you used and your mentioning of Tom Cotton, as one of your allies does a lot tells me a lot. I am sorry Tom Cotton is one of my allies. Where did that come from, and what did it tell you? What Tom Cotton and the 46 Republicans did with the letter to Iran is unforgiveable. You don't try to nix the deal before it is even made.

Read foreign press. How about England? The prime minister had no problem with the agreement. You just pick the press (domestic and foreign) that supports your thinking. All other press doesn't exist, or should be completely ignored because they are biased.

If the IAEA has had problems in dealing with Iran in the past, maybe the side agreements were to avoid having the same problems in the future. The Republicans were never going to vote for the agreement. By using the word secret side agreements, they are trying to give impression that the IAEA has some sinister ploy with Iran.

I am a moderate Independent. The reason that I may sound liberal is the Republicans have so far to the right they are off the grid. I don't get angry. I never have, and never will. The person that I will vote for in the primary is John Kasich. He certainly didn't disappoint me in the first debate.

I did tone down this post.

I want to say this as nicely as possible.

I thought when I read your note that you were someone else.

Had I known it was you, I would not have replied.

Sorry for replying to you

[Guest]

Almost every one of the Euopean and Asian countries hat vote for the agreement have substantial gains to be realized when the sanctions are lifted from Iran.

So those who like to point to our "allies" and have us learn from them should review the details of why they signed.

They were not driven by the political rhetoric coming out of Washington.....while they would all say they want the nuclear controls the agreement brings (:1rotfl::1rotfl:) so they say to Obama to puff him up and then :1rotfl: behind him.

Widely reported is that France wanted the USA to stick with the initial idea presented. Complete dismantling of nuclear and a partial easing of the sanctions, which Iran said would be a cause to leave the table.

France said ok but the USA intervened and gave in.

I have no idea if true but if you read the European press, the foreign minister has said as much.

But Russia is in a great place now. They already in conjunction with Iran have helped to violate a UN rule about the Iranian military visiting there but we never even protested that move.

There will be ICBM's rolling into Iran and Iran has the money to pay and now Russia has a place to buy oil because they now can and everything is just rosy.

The sanctions were working in my opinion and we just caved.

I DO understand how we might want a deal like this, but not this deal. We have empowered a lot of folks with this deal and it will be laid at the feet of the next person in the WH .

[Guest]

Here is the concern I have.

N Korea is making nukes
Pakistan is making nukes
India is making nukes
Belarus has agreed in 2010 to stop but they reneged and are making nukes.
Saudi Arabia has announced they will begin a program directly because of Iran
Russia is making changes to increase their nuke production.

And this quote from

"“Regional conflicts have gotten worse, not better” over Obama’s 6½ years, said former Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.), now the CEO of the Nuclear Threat Initiative. “All the things that give rise to nuclear ambitions … in my view have gotten worse.”

Obama’s proliferation problem – POLITICO (http://www.politico.eu/article/obamas-problem-prague-april-harvard/)

And this is the scary part....very scary......

"In addition, the possibility that terrorists could acquire enough radioactive material to create a nuclear weapon or so-called dirty bomb is “one of the greatest dangers facing the global community,” according to a report released in June from the 80-member Fissile Materials Working Group. Nuclear experts warn that highly enriched uranium at civilian sites — enough for hundreds of nuclear weapons spread over 100 facilities in the remaining 25 countries that possess it — tends to be less secure than that used in military applications. It’s generally up to the states that have those materials, including South Africa, Belarus and Kazakhstan, to keep them safe."

Just re read that paragraph.....it will not take much to destroy an entire....well, entire what would depend on how much money the group that wants to destroy has and guess who is going to get more money.....IRAN the single largest state supporter of terrorism.

And our President, being a peace loving guy (and I do not mean that to be sarcastic) has promised not to develop any new nuclear weapons on his watch, the first President in the nuclear era to do that.

I really worry because certain folks will be getting money and can afford to BUY whatever they want to promote anything terrorist. They need not to have their program in effect so it is easy for them to agree.

[Guest]

Concerning Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they could, if IAEA doesn't do their job. if Iran does get nuclear weapons, it will not be in great numbers. They would probably launch it/them against Israel. They would kill a lot of innocent people, which is totally wrong, but they wouldn't cause Israel total destruction.

If they did this, they have to know they would be wiped off the face of the earth. Can an entire country be so ready to die?

Israel with the help of the US will never let Iran get a nuclear weapon.

[Guest]

The reason that the four hostages weren't included in the deal with Iran is Iran would probably have looked for a concession in the deal to free the hostages. The agreement was hard enough to begin with. By adding anything to it might have made it impossible.

Yes, I heard this same statement coming from the President's mouth. The problem is that I don't understand it. A concession?? How could that be possible when we already had conceded everything to begin with?? So I guess the only way to get an "agreement" was for them to get what they wanted and us to get nothing in return? Unless I'm totally missing something here, I still see it as a bloodletting on our part, hopefully not to be followed by bloodshed. And I mean that sincerely...........praying for our country because it's the only thing I can think of to do at this point.

[Guest]

Concerning Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they could, if IAEA doesn't do their job. if Iran does get nuclear weapons, it will not be in great numbers. They would probably launch it/them against Israel. They would kill a lot of innocent people, which is totally wrong, but they wouldn't cause Israel total destruction.

If they did this, they have to know they would be wiped off the face of the earth. Can an entire country be so ready to die?

Israel with the help of the US will never let Iran get a nuclear weapon.

If you read post 61 and other links supplied and the european press, Iran does not NEED to get a nuclear weapon. They are the "lead dog" in terrorism and will have, from Russia, ICBMs and MONEY to help those developing weapons.

[Guest]

Concerning Iran getting a nuclear weapon, they could, if IAEA doesn't do their job. if Iran does get nuclear weapons, it will not be in great numbers. They would probably launch it/them against Israel. They would kill a lot of innocent people, which is totally wrong, but they wouldn't cause Israel total destruction.

If they did this, they have to know they would be wiped off the face of the earth. Can an entire country be so ready to die?

Israel with the help of the US will never let Iran get a nuclear weapon.

You don't understand radical Islam's mindset. Iran hates Israel and us. They don't care about the consequences of their actions and when (not if) they get a nuke, they WILL use it against Israel. These type of people do not think in the 21st or even in 20th century. When dealing with radicals, you have to deal with them via power. They have no respect for what they perceive as weakness in us. No, the only way to deal with Iran is with a hammer, not an open hand. As far as Israel is concerned, as long a Obama is residing in the White House, they will have nothing to say. He won't back them. He disrespects them, and I really believe he prefers the state of Islam over our close allies of Israel. Probably because he was indoctrinated by the Muslim in school in his youth. There are appox. 200,000 Americans residing in Israel, making it almost another small state. We have bit of an obligation to protect our interests over there. Either due to our fellow Americans or because of Israel's strategic value.

[Guest]

You don't understand radical Islam's mindset. Iran hates Israel and us. They don't care about the consequences of their actions and when (not if) they get a nuke, they WILL use it against Israel. These type of people do not think in the 21st or even in 20th century. When dealing with radicals, you have to deal with them via power. They have no respect for what they perceive as weakness in us. No, the only way to deal with Iran is with a hammer, not an open hand. As far as Israel is concerned, as long a Obama is residing in the White House, they will have nothing to say. He won't back them. He disrespects them, and I really believe he prefers the state of Islam over our close allies of Israel. Probably because he was indoctrinated by the Muslim in school in his youth. There are appox. 200,000 Americans residing in Israel, making it almost another small state. We have bit of an obligation to protect our interests over there. Either due to our fellow Americans or because of Israel's strategic value.

Your point is well stated and I agree. I think there is a select group of people that will never see that point of view however for one reason - they don't understand or believe that there is real evil in the world. I can't tell you how many times I have been laughed at for even mentioning the word in conversation/debate. I don't know if it is ignorance, or lacking a spiritual side, or what, but for some reason there are people who just can't or won't acknowledge evil, so it is hard for them to fathom what you say. The idea that radicalism exists to the point that their sole purpose is the destruction and annihilation of other people or countries is beyond some people's comprehension no matter how you try to state it. If one DOES understand that evil exists however, even the thought of making a deal with a country that wants all of us dead (and continues to state that while the deal is being made!) IS incomprehensible to say the least.

[Guest]

Your point is well stated and I agree. I think there is a select group of people that will never see that point of view however for one reason - they don't understand or believe that there is real evil in the world. I can't tell you how many times I have been laughed at for even mentioning the word in conversation/debate. I don't know if it is ignorance, or lacking a spiritual side, or what, but for some reason there are people who just can't or won't acknowledge evil, so it is hard for them to fathom what you say. The idea that radicalism exists to the point that their sole purpose is the destruction and annihilation of other people or countries is beyond some people's comprehension no matter how you try to state it. If one DOES understand that evil exists however, even the thought of making a deal with a country that wants all of us dead (and continues to state that while the deal is being made!) IS incomprehensible to say the least.

Exactly!! :thumbup::thumbup:

[Guest]

The supporters will never do or say anything that is not in line with the Obama agenda or consistent with party dictates.
Understanding has nothing to do with their intentions or actions.....there is none required or expected.

[Guest]

The supporters will never do or say anything that is not in line with the Obama agenda or consistent with party dictates.
Understanding has nothing to do with their intentions or actions.....there is none required or expected.

You got that right!

[Guest]

JUST BE AWARE.....AS HAS BEEN SAID ON HER MANY TIMES.

Despite the ridicule heaped on Romney, and then ridicule typed in this forum in 2008, when Romney told what the biggest threat was....Obama then ridiculed him for weeks.

"Despite the preoccupation with Iran’s nuclear program, Iran currently has nothing of that nature which can threaten the homeland of the United States. Yet, Russia can obliterate the United States, a fact that has been highlighted recently by no less than three top American generals. The term, “existential threat,” has been used repeatedly to describe the Russian challenge. That term means the Russians can destroy the United States as a nation"

The nation is fiercely debating the Iran nuclear deal and the significance of the Ayatollah’s “death to America” tweets when the real problem is Iran’s sponsor, Russia, and its lunatic ruler, Vladimir Putin. By controlling the media, killing off the opposition, and smearing Ukrainian freedom fighters as Nazis, the former KGB colonel has his country worked into a collective frenzy over a concocted Western threat. Some experts believe Russia is preparing for nuclear war on a global scale. If Putin carries out his threats, America is no more.

In this case, the U.S. is facing not only a nuclear weapons program, which is the case with Iran, but what our top generals are calling an “existential threat” to our survival as a nation.

As the National Institute for Public Policy documents in the report, “Foreign Nuclear Developments: A Gathering Storm,” Russia has a new military doctrine that anticipates using nuclear weapons, and the regime has embarked on “a massive strategic modernization program to deploy new nuclear weapons and delivery systems.”

Not only that, but Russia has a ballistic missile defense to use against us."

Putin Threatens America with Nuclear Annihilation (http://www.aim.org/aim-column/putin-threatens-america-with-nuclear-annihilation/)

[Guest]

"
"A vulnerable antagonist. Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen says America faces little danger from Russia’s current troubles, but that’s because she thinks in economic terms. In a broader sense, America potentially is in great danger because Putin and his advisors really believe they are the target of a Western plot to weaken their country. The biggest concern is that some new move by Russia along its borders degenerates into a crisis where Moscow thinks it can improve its tactical situation by threatening local use of nuclear weapons, and then the crisis escalates. At that point U.S. policymakers would have to face the reality that (1) they are unwilling to fight Russia to protect places like Ukraine, and (2) they have no real defenses of the American homeland against a sizable nuclear attack. In other words, the only reason Washington seems to have the upper hand right now is because it assumes leaders in Moscow will act “rationally.”"



If you wish to tie this Iran deal together with what else accompanies it, read the link here and above.

Iran is a puppet of Russia.

Why Putin's Russia Is The Biggest Threat To America In 2015 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2015/01/02/why-putins-russia-is-the-biggest-threat-to-america-in-2015/)

[Guest]

Former Republican presidential candidate and Tea Party favorite explains why the Iran deal is actually a good thing and why we should all be glad we live in these exciting times!

Michele Bachmann: Iran deal a cause for celebration because it proves the End Times have begun in earnest - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/2015/08/10/michele_bachmann_iran_deal_a_cause_for_celebration _because_it_proves_the_end_times_have_begun_in_ear nest/)

[Guest]

Anybody who takes a position of supporting the agreement without knowing the impact and nature of the side agreements is doing nothing more than parroting their party rhetoric.

Until such time as the content of the side agreements is know.....NO ONE knows the validity of the "agreement".

I suggest most who are in support cannot even articulate the supposed content of the agreement....the major objectives agreed to and any timings.

Any takers?

[Guest]

There is absolutely nothing that we or congress can do to stop the agreement. The great emperor, king of czars has made his decision contrary to what is good for America or the rest of the world. Iran will not need to build nukes. They will purchase them from Russia. They will have all their money back and free to trade. NO sanctions.

[Guest]

Interesting to note that two former George Bush senior diplomats back the treaty. Of course, these diplomats aren't as smart and well versed as the posters from the Villages who frequent this site when they aren't reading Alinsky, as if any of them really have.

Former Bush Diplomats Push Back on Criticism of Iran Deal « LobeLog (http://www.lobelog.com/former-bush-diplomats-push-back-on-criticism-of-iran-deal/)

How come none of the Villages Tea Party holy roller crowd haven't jumped on the Michele Bachman bandwagon? Here's another link to her reassuring position in case some of you astute readers missed it.


Michele Bachmann Is 'Extremely Excited' for Iran Deal Because It Will Usher God's Judgement on the World as Foretold In Zechariah 12:3 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/michele-bachmann-is-extremely-excited-for-iran-deal-because-it-will-usher-gods-judgement-on-the-world-as-foretold-in-zechariah-123-142630/)

[Guest]

Did you say something? Are we comparing something here? Size? What? Are you taking a poll of Conservatives and Liberals that are for and against the treaty. Did you get Schumer's permission to speak for the left? Because he doesn't support it. Did you ask the 41% of the Dems in congress that support it, if you can speak for them? Why not ask the rest of the Dems in congress why they don't support it?

Did you say something?

[Guest]

Interesting to note that two former George Bush senior diplomats back the treaty. Of course, these diplomats aren't as smart and well versed as the posters from the Villages who frequent this site when they aren't reading Alinsky, as if any of them really have.

Former Bush Diplomats Push Back on Criticism of Iran Deal « LobeLog (http://www.lobelog.com/former-bush-diplomats-push-back-on-criticism-of-iran-deal/)

How come none of the Villages Tea Party holy roller crowd haven't jumped on the Michele Bachman bandwagon? Here's another link to her reassuring position in case some of you astute readers missed it.


Michele Bachmann Is 'Extremely Excited' for Iran Deal Because It Will Usher God's Judgement on the World as Foretold In Zechariah 12:3 (http://www.christianpost.com/news/michele-bachmann-is-extremely-excited-for-iran-deal-because-it-will-usher-gods-judgement-on-the-world-as-foretold-in-zechariah-123-142630/)

Not sure of the intent of this post. Perhaps the poster might explain.

This Iran thing should not have partisan boundaries and I think we are seeing that. Yes, the majority of Republicans oppose it, as do over 50% of the Democrats in congress. I do not see it as partisan....

I like discussion on the deal itself instead of trying to make some kind of political points.

The question should be how posters feel about this deal.

By the way, you did understand the sarcastic point of the link to Bachmann ??

[Guest]

Not sure of the intent of this post. Perhaps the poster might explain.

This Iran thing should not have partisan boundaries and I think we are seeing that. Yes, the majority of Republicans oppose it, as do over 50% of the Democrats in congress. I do not see it as partisan....

I like discussion on the deal itself instead of trying to make some kind of political points.

The question should be how posters feel about this deal.

By the way, you did understand the sarcastic point of the link to Bachmann ??

Who knows what that link to Bachmann was all about.
Personally, I do not like the deal. It's much too dangerous. We are giving them everything, and we are getting nothing. They get their money back, the sanctions are lifted. I'm not even worried that much about them creating a nuke. They can now buy one from the Russians. Nope, bad deal by incompetent people. A bad deal is NOT better than no deal.

[Guest]

Who knows what that link to Bachmann was all about.
Personally, I do not like the deal. It's much too dangerous. We are giving them everything, and we are getting nothing. They get their money back, the sanctions are lifted. I'm not even worried that much about them creating a nuke. They can now buy one from the Russians. Nope, bad deal by incompetent people. A bad deal is NOT better than no deal.

Your point is well taken.

We make a deal, and within a week, the Iran military head goes to Russia IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS, and we say nothing. It just disappeared from the news.

Russia, as I have tried to say and supplied links from experts is our worry.

Iran will be economically sound. Iran can now trade with those they want to trade with with NO restrictions. Iran as already announced is buying ICBMs from Russia Iran can now sell oil to Russia which they need.

Iran has always been the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Now, they can do it with no fear of sanctions or anything.

I think it is scary and while we sure are not privy to the secret briefings, it appears from the Democrats leaving the fold, they are not hearing anything to make them feel better.

[Guest]

THIS is part of one of the secret agreements in this deal....

"VIENNA (AP) — Iran will be allowed to use its own inspectors to investigate a site it has been accused of using to develop nuclear arms, operating under a secret agreement with the U.N. agency that normally carries out such work, according to a document seen by The Associated Press."

AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site - Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-un-let-iran-inspect-alleged-nuke-165604071.html)

It just gets better !!!

[Guest]

Yes, this is such a great deal. But, tell me what moron decided that it was a good idea to let Iran do their own inspections? Tell me, not the Harvard graduate....

[Guest]

Yes, this is such a great deal. But, tell me what moron decided that it was a good idea to let Iran do their own inspections? Tell me, not the Harvard graduate....

hint; he resides in the WH, with his lap dog Kerry by his backside.