Oh oh, looks like Obama's Iran deal is collapsing.

[Interpol]

The GOP changed how the vote will proceed..it now takes 2/3 opposition to the agreement instead of the 2/3 needed to pass it...oops...

I thought that something less then a majority is all that's needed to pass this nuke deal. I could be wrong, and I couldn't tell you what the magic number is, to be honest, if I'm right.

The new law, written by the hapless GOP, says that a two-thirds majority may vote against the part of the deal that offers a relief in sanctions on Iran.

The problem is that if every GOP senator votes against, they would also need 13 Democratic senators. And if every single member of the House GOP caucus votes against, they'd need 44 House Democrats to join them.

John Boehner simply doesn't have the votes and neither does Mitch McConnell.

Won't stop the GOP from bitching that we should choose no oversight of Iran and to allow them to keep all of their centrifuges, as well as the hostages.

With a deal, the pathway to bring those people home becomes clearer and easier. Without a deal, the hostages stay.

Count on a total GOP clusterfuck come September as they put this up for a vote while we watch them totally fail on CSPAN once more because their leaders have no aptitude when it comes to basic arithmetic.

 

[rdean]

The assets frozen during the hostage crisis were "unfrozen" as soon as the hostages were released in 1981. Keep up.

The vast majority (65 billion or so) of frozen Iranian assets are held by European countries and not by the US - as can be seen by the fact that Iran has already gotten most of it back.

The hostages were released because Reagan sent a message before his inauguration that he will consider it an act of war. All frozen or seized assets have stayed frozen for the last 35 years.

You are laughably incorrect.

http://www.parstimes.com/history/algiers_accords.pdf

Yes there was a little bit of carrot associated. But the hostage takers were mostly afraid of what Reagan would do. Bush Sr. the ex spy chief made sure the Iranians understood that Reagan would rip them a new one. Since then the US has seized much more.
Treasury Designates Companies Tied to Iran s Bank Melli as Proliferators

First of all: The "Reagan was so manly and powerful that all he had to do was look at Iran and they capitulated" meme is horseshit.

Second, no matter how many links you find from decades ago talking about Iranian assets frozen in the US, it's not going to change the fact that we hold very little of the total of Iranian frozen assets. Read the news, dude - much of those assets have already been unfrozen.

At least you're admitting that you were completely incorrect in saying that the assets frozen during the hostage crisis were unfrozen 35 years ago.

Yeah yeah yeah. Iranians released the hostages just hours after Reagan's inauguration speech. You do the math. If they had nothing to be afraid of they would have dragged it for another two years with him as well. They knew not to fuck with Reagan, he wasn't a paper tiger like Carter.

Oh yea, I guess that "proof". What could they possibly gain by holding on to the hostages? Reagan got hundreds of soldiers killed, turned tail and ran.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Oh, by the way....we are now expanding bombing campaigns in Syria to assist "rebels" (read terrorists) there. I don't hear a peep out of any of the Chicken Littles purportedly so afraid of war in Iran even though Bashar al Asaad is a client of Iran and Iran is not likely to look kindly on this. Obama expands bombing in Syria to support U.S.-backed rebels - LA Times

No one is afraid of war in Iran. They are afraid this sham deal will fall through and
it will be a black mark (excuse the expression) on the record of Barry Hussein Obama and it will be that much harder for Iran to get their bomb.

Who has claimed to be "afraid" of war with Iran?

Are you kidding? It's a very popular theme. If we don't agree to the Obama/Iran deal then war is the only option. Look around.

Without a deal, war is the "only option" for what? How does that imply being "afraid" of war?

Why don't you try to articulate your own opinion, rather than attempting to argue against straw men?

The only option for dealing with Iran!! Wake up and learn the issues here.
Everyone is warned if this deal is rejected than war with Iran is our only option.
Christ! Pay attention for awhile.
Are you really asking how does war cause a fear of war?

I'm not arguing a straw man but a position vociferously held by many advocates for this deal. Why not learn the issue before filling the thread with your misinformed blather?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rowdy 11983867

Here's the poll that truly counts:

A poll conducted by the well-respected Quinnipiac University and published on Monday, Aug. 3,

Those responders to the poll don't vote in the U.S. Senate.

These Three do get to vote.

Obama Nuclear Deal Gets Three Key Backers In The Senate. "We must face the truth. A punishing sanctions regime did not stop Iran’s nuclear program."
9 hours ago | Updated 6 hours ago.

. WASHINGTON -- Three key swing Democrats announced support for the Iran nuclear agreement on Tuesday, citing it as an improvement over the status quo. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the first to declare his position, gave a speech on the Senate floor lauding the international community's use of diplomacy over force to bring about a peaceful agreement that will require Iran to dismantle the bulk of its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. He was followed by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

Obama Nuclear Deal Gets Three Key Backers In The Senate


These Key Senators are setting up plenty of cover for Schumer. It's called truth:

. "We must face the truth. A punishing sanctions regime did not stop Iran’s nuclear program," Kaine advised his colleagues on Tuesday. "The nuclear program will only stop by a diplomatic agreement or by military action. While military action must be an option, it is in America’s interest -- and the interest of the entire world -- to use every effort to find a diplomatic resolution."

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Roudy

I'm curious - what is it that you think the US should do at this point, and what do you think the results of whatever that is would be?

I've noticed that Roudy has not responded to your question. Vigorous opponents of the Iran/P5+1 deal have no idea what the U.S. should have done unilaterally without the support of the five other most powerful nations on earth that were not convinced that sanctions or military action were the means to prevent Iran from expanding beyond peaceful use of nuclear power if that was indeed Iran's intent.

I am eager to see Roudy try to write a
serious straightforward answer to your two questions.

 

[Bobby1250]

Israel is not afraid of the Iran nuclear accord. Israel is, after all, a nuclear-armed state. Israel wants Iran smashed into
rubble (by American soldiers) and the deal simply gets in the way!

 

[Roudy]

And as we can see in today's news I was right, Schumer chooses his career and his future over that stupid lying con artist named Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/08/u...schumer-rattles-democratic-firewall.html?_r=0

 

[Roudy]

Only the insane would cut a deal with such an untrustworthy party as the Islamic republic of Iran.

New Docs Reveal Osama bin Laden's Secret Ties With Iran
Show availability of Iran for al Qaeda training, plotting.
12:27 PM, FEB 27, 2015 • BY THOMAS JOSCELYN

his week, prosecutors in New York introduced eight documents recovered in Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan as evidence in the trial of a terrorism suspect. The U.S. government accuses Abid Naseer of taking part in al Qaeda’s scheme to attack targets in Europe and New York City. And prosecutors say the documents are essential for understanding the scope of al Qaeda’s plotting.

More than 1 million documents and files were captured by the Navy Seals who raided bin Laden’s safe house in Abbottabad, Pakistan in May 2011. One year later, in May 2012, the Obama administration released just 17 of them.

While there is some overlap between the files introduced as evidence in Brooklyn and those that were previously made public in 2012, much of what is in the trial exhibits had never been made public before.

The files do not support the view, promoted by some in the Obama administration, that bin Laden was in “comfortable retirement,” “sidelined,” or “a lion in winter” in the months leading up to his death. On the contrary, bin Laden is asked to give his order on a host of issues, ranging from the handling of money to the movement of terrorist operatives.

Some of the key revelations in the newly-released bin Laden files relate to al Qaeda’s dealings with Iran and presence in Afghanistan.

A top al Qaeda operative asked bin Laden for permission to relocate to Iran in June 2010 as he plotted attacks around the world. That operative, Yunis al Mauritani, was a senior member of al Qaeda’s so-called “external operations” team, and plotted to launch Mumbai-style attacks in Europe.

 

[JFish123]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sear]

"looks like Obama's Iran deal is collapsing."

No problem.
President Trump will take care of it. He'll just build a fence around Iran, and send the bill for construction to Mexico.

 

[Roudy]

"looks like Obama's Iran deal is collapsing."

No problem.
President Trump will take care of it. He'll just build a fence around Iran, and send the bill for construction to Mexico.

Don't give up your daytime job to be a comedian, if you have one.

 

[Roudy]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well said!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Wingnuts want everybody to listen to Generals and Admirals. /. Now they want to listen to Chuck Schumer instead.

National Security
Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran nuclear deal

.
By Karen DeYoung August 11 at 3:09 PM
Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.

Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”

Dozens of retired generals admirals back Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post



Dozens of Scientists also endorsed the deal / but we know Wingnuts don't respect science or facts, But Generals and Admirals ? It will be difficult to call the Islamo Nazi sympathizers as the call Obama and Kerry.

Science and Military for the deal not war.

Schumer looks like a real warmongering fool now / in cahoots with Iran's hardliners to prevent this deal from happening.

 

[sear]

R #152
"I think it's somewhat ironic uh to see uh some members of congress wanting to make common cause with hard-liners in Iran." U.S. President Obama 15/03/09

 

[ScienceRocks]

I will oppose this war unless we're attacked. Spend money on America..Not Iran!

 

[Katzndogz]

I oppose war with anyone as long as obastard is president.

But we don't have to make their bombs for them.

 

[Katzndogz]

I will oppose this war unless we're attacked. Spend money on America..Not Iran!

Does that mean you oppose giving Iran 150 billion dollars? That's what we did.

 

[AdvancingTime]

One way or another we must deal with Iran. Six world powers have reached an agreement with Iran on its disputed nuclear program after years of talks. A little research shows that Iran has good reason not to trust the American government. Our foreign policy has reeked havoc upon many countries, but few societies have been effected or suffered from our meddling as much as Iran. Those who are skeptical and view this as a weak agreement say Obama has again backed down again. An interesting thought to consider is Iran holds more cards than you might think because of ISIS.

One might say Iran holds the fate of Baghdad in their hands. If the Shia militias from Iran that are currently defending Baghdad waver both the Iraqi capital and the American Green Zone could come under fire from ISIS, this would be very embarrassing for Obama and our government. The bottom-line remains that if Iran does not halt and reverse its course any agreement means nothing. Iran can always ramp up its plans to develop a nuclear bomb at off site locations. The fact is if current trends continue in the future Iran looks to face a defanged and economically weakened America with less power in the region. Regardless it appears one way or the other we must deal with Iran. The article below delves into our history with Iran and where we go from here.

http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2015/08/we-must-deal-with-iran.html

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I oppose war with anyone as long as obastard is president.

But we don't have to make their bombs for them.

Who told you we will be making bombs for them?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

One might say Iran holds the fate of Baghdad in their hands. If the Shia militias from Iran that are currently defending Baghdad waver both the Iraqi capital and the American Green Zone could come under fire from ISIS, this would be very embarrassing for Obama and our government. The bottom-line remains that if Iran does not halt and reverse its course any agre

I agree with much of what you are saying but a couple things from the above are not quite accurate. I don't believe Iran is all that close to holding the fate of Baghdad in their hands. I believe Iran's support is crucial but not absolutely essential to keeping daesh terrorist scum from taking control of Baghdad. Daesh just cannot do it without air power and it would take a much larger number of killers and suicidal zealots to take over that muc Shiite populated territory. They have only really advanced in Sunni dominated parts of Iraq and have overall been reversed losing at least 25 % of what they held in Iraq last summer.

I do believe the Iran Deal is a huge setback for ISIS because Iran's moderates are the winners with the deal too. Since Iran is the major Shiite player in the world and region, it was Tehran's Theocratic leadership that is most embarrassed over Iraq's US built army that let an enemy like Sunni Daesh get as close to Iran's border as they did last year. The U.S. government has nothing to be embarrassed about over what happens now in Iraq. The U.S. Government is rightfully embarrassed for invading Iraq in the first place in 2003. Iraq and Tehran have been making their own security decisions since 2007. We did not make their decisions for them and had no right to do so.