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.

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by 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!

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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!!!!!!

Originally Posted by 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!!!!!!

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

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 () so they say to Obama to puff him up and then behind him.

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by 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 () so they say to Obama to puff him up and then 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 .