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

Listen, this is nothing new....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

On what information do you base this news ???

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

Please give more specifics

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

No reason for name calling by anyone.

Originally Posted by Guest

No reason for name calling by anyone.

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

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

Originally Posted by Guest

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

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

Thank you.

Nice attempt! Flyby commentary acknowledged!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Suppose Iran Doesn

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

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

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

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/10/iran-...ce-change.html

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

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

Iran Made Illegal Purchases of Nuclear Weapons Technology Last Month | The Weekly Standard

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Guest

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

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

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

Originally Posted by guest

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

does not matter.

President said he will veto any disapproval

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