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

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

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

Personal Best Regards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=Guest;



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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wonder why this would not be part of a deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some posts would be an improvement as they achieve mediocrity.

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

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

Here is one revelation that Iran demanded:

Iran Bans U.S. Inspectors from All Nuclear Sites | Washington Free Beacon

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

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

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

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

Overriding the veto is playing with fire.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obama is THE strategic jihadist. Allah Akbar.

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

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

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

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

Obama ranked 38th among U.S. Presidents
 

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

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

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

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

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

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