Republican Senators send a letter to Iran. Wow. Damn!

[BlackSand]

Now, given this recent letter from those 47 dingbats, let's say you were a moderate, western educated Iranian, would you tend to side with the west, or with the Ayathollahs?

We want the people of Iran to stand up to the Ayatollah's ... Not give the Ayatollah's what they want.

How would the US signing an agreement with the Ayatollah's in Iran indicate we support the people of Iran?
The people of Iran are not going to prosper from the lifting of sanctions because they don't own crap.

If you think any of this makes President Obama look tough ... It doesn't.
He has already made a mess of his foreign policy ... And he cannot even keep Congress in line.
We are dealing with Ayatollah's that drag their political enemies out into the square and put a bullet in the back of their head (or whatever else they can think off).

They are laughing at President Obama and the rest of the United States ... Because they can twist us in knots and don't have the slightest intention of doing as agreed if an agreement is signed.

.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh yes they are. Consider this . . .

ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman

But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.

Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.

That is a lot of stupid. Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.

No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid. It makes perfect sense. The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.

Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere.

He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC.

The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.

He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.

His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.

All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.

Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.

It's just a guess at best. It's backed by nothing. Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.

Oh, if you had read my previous links, the connections are quite clear. Iran is putting on a show and throwing about propaganda like always. They have ulterior motives and one of them is the destruction of the governing body of Iraq.

Wow, I bet Obama and Kerry don't know that. You should call and warn them.

You mean Russel Chapman should? I didn't write the article, you know.

 

[ChrisL]

Oh yes they are. Consider this . . .

ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Who is it good for Russell Chapman

But why would Iran, which is Shia, help an extremist Sunni group? The answer is simple, to create havoc and chaos in Sunni dominated areas. Over time you will see that ISIS will not concentrate on trying to capture Shia areas. Baghdad is mixed between Sunni and Shia so they may try to take it but it is unlikely. However, the south-east of Iraq is by far majority Shia, I will be very surprised if they try to push into this part of the country. It will give a further strong indication that they are working with Iran.

Of course, to keep up appearances, Iran will make a show of helping Iraq to resist ISIS but it is more likely that Iraqi Sunni militias will be created from the remains of the army and other groups. It will end up similar to Syria, where the FSA while fighting the government, is also spending a lot of time trying to fight back against ISIS. The entire region will descend into a state of perpetual conflict, with only the Shia areas of Iraq remaining quiet. This is what Iran wants. The danger of using a proxy such as ISIS is that you have to keep control of it. Has Iran got ISIS on a short enough leash? Time will tell.

That is a lot of stupid. Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.

No, if you knew anything about Iran, it is not stupid. It makes perfect sense. The author has nothing to gain by lying and he knows a LOT about the ME.

Russell Chapman is a freelance photographer and writer. Originally from the UK, he is now based in Switzerland. He is well versed in Middle Eastern and Russian affairs. Using photography he tries to communicate strong messages and emotions in a way which will have a lasting impact on those who observe his work. His writing is based on a perspective that tries to look at events from different angles which are not always covered elsewhere.

He is recognized for his work in Syria, having been invited to present at international conferences such as Refugee Voices at the Refugee Studies Centre at St Annes College, Oxford University and Franklin University, Switzerland. His work was also exhibited at the Conference on Forced Migration in Washington DC.

The book, Syria: Refugees and Rebels, is a personal account documenting Chapman’s time in Syria in the Spring of 2013, as well as the refugee camps of Lebanon and Jordan. In it, he talks about his experiences of this war torn country but the main focus is on his photo documentary of what he saw.

He went to Syria because he wanted to better understand what is really happening. His Syrian friends told him that only a part of the full picture is given in the news. The only way to get the full pictures was to go there himself. Over the course of the month that he was in Syria, he saw for himself the effects of the war on the people, his book is very much a reflection of that. Telling the story of a people who have lost so much, those who remain in the country and those who have fled to refugee camps.

His approach to photographing the situation was not that of the hit and run style, but rather, a more thoughtful approach. He spent a lot of time with the Syrian people, getting to know them better and in so doing, discovered that they were prepared to really open up to him and share their personal stories. As a result, the images he captured show more of the soul of the people rather than simply focusing on their distressed situation.

All the time he was on this project he lived as the people, he even spent a night in a refugee camp in Jordan to try and understand on some small scale what these people have to live with every day. His interest in Syria is very much humanitarian, the purpose of his work and his book specifically, is to show the real people, the fact that they are the same as people everywhere. They have the same hopes and dreams, the desire for security, a home, work and family. Simply because they are living through this terrible time does not make them somehow less than we who do not have these problems.

Before going to Syria, Chapman was able to raise money to buy medicines to help the Syrians. His desire is to continue this work, sales of the book go toward Chapman continuing, in his own small way, his work of giving a voice to those who have lost so much, as well as trying to help them directly.

It's just a guess at best. It's backed by nothing. Fact is Iran is fighting Isis.

This has already been explained to you multiple times. Ulterior motives. Everything is going exactly the way Iran has planned.

Yes and you want them to be stopped from getting nuclear power they already have.

Yes, I wish that was possible. However, we can continue to sanction them and punish them for going against the IAEA and lying. It's almost as if we are rewarding them. WHY? Why do you think Obama has decided to make this deal when just a few years ago, he was just as much against Iran having nukes as any republican?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 10956998

That is why I think, if the US gets involved with another country's problems, we reserve the right to occupy such country/countries for as long as we see fit.

We were not invited in to resolve Iraq's problems - we invaded by choice instead of allowing the UN Security Council to disarm Iraq peacefully.

Who do we reserve the right to occupy any nation we want as long as we see fit. Do you want bring back Genghis Khan for President?

 

[boedicca]

Now, given this recent letter from those 47 dingbats, let's say you were a moderate, western educated Iranian, would you tend to side with the west, or with the Ayathollahs?

We want the people of Iran to stand up to the Ayatollah's ... Not give the Ayatollah's what they want.

How would the US signing an agreement with the Ayatollah's in Iran indicate we support the people of Iran?
The people of Iran are not going to prosper from the lifting of sanctions because they don't own crap.

If you think any of this makes President Obama look tough ... It doesn't.
He has already made a mess of his foreign policy ... And he cannot even keep Congress in line.
We are dealing with Ayatollah's that drag their political enemies out into the square and put a bullet in the back of their head (or whatever else they can think off).

They are laughing at President Obama and the rest of the United States ... Because they can twist us in knots and don't have the slightest intention of doing as agreed if an agreement is signed.

.

Obama already proved to the people of Iran that they can't trust him when he punted on supporting the Green Revolution in 2009. Instead of liberating Iran, he reinforced the Mullahs' control.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 10956998

That is why I think, if the US gets involved with another country's problems, we reserve the right to occupy such country/countries for as long as we see fit.

We were not invited in to resolve Iraq's problems - we invaded by choice instead of allowing the UN Security Council to disarm Iraq peacefully.

Who do we reserve the right to occupy any nation we want as long as we see fit. Do you want bring back Genghis Khan for President?

Okay, I never said that the Iraq war was a smart idea. However, if we do get involved and go to war, the smart thing to do would be to occupy that country for as long as we deem necessary. Why should we spend our lives and money to throw it all away because of political correctness? We should not ever do that. We stay until the job is done, IMO. Regardless of what some "dictator" thinks about it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 10957042

Let's take a look at some real in-depth polling statistics . . . since most people don't click on my links or bother to read the material, I took the liberty of posting it for you all.

Which one disputes or counters this poll which is pretty much the same this year?

There is no poll that shows Americans by a majority oppose the nuclear negotiations at all - tell us which one you think does.

Or stop complaining that no one reads you sources.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 10956998

That is why I think, if the US gets involved with another country's problems, we reserve the right to occupy such country/countries for as long as we see fit.

We were not invited in to resolve Iraq's problems - we invaded by choice instead of allowing the UN Security Council to disarm Iraq peacefully.

Who do we reserve the right to occupy any nation we want as long as we see fit. Do you want bring back Genghis Khan for President?

Another thing to consider is that Saddam was a thorn in the side of many nations, and to his own people. Do you realize that he was a true psychopath? A psychopath in control of all kinds of money and power who actually enjoyed torturing, raping and killing people? So, I can understand why a lot of people would want to see him taken out.

If we had managed this war correctly, we would still be in Iraq today, and ISIS would not be an issue.

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 10957042

Let's take a look at some real in-depth polling statistics . . . since most people don't click on my links or bother to read the material, I took the liberty of posting it for you all.

Which one disputes or counters this poll which is pretty much the same this year?

There is no poll that shows Americans by a majority oppose the nuclear negotiations at all - tell us which one you think does.

Or stop complaining that no one reads you sources.

All of them. All of the polls show that Americans are against Iran having nuclear power. You are wrong. IN fact, I linked you to two such polls which asked specific questions related to these issues. The overwhelming majority of American people are against a nuclear Iran.

Are you actually saying that you think the majority of Americans approve of a nuclear Iran? Is that your argument here?

 

[ChrisL]

ChrL 10957042

Let's take a look at some real in-depth polling statistics . . . since most people don't click on my links or bother to read the material, I took the liberty of posting it for you all.

Which one disputes or counters this poll which is pretty much the same this year?

There is no poll that shows Americans by a majority oppose the nuclear negotiations at all - tell us which one you think does.

Or stop complaining that no one reads you sources.

Here is the poll again. Read it this time.

Iran

And this specific excerpt . . . which notes that 64% of Americans feel it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action.

"In your opinion, which is more important: to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action, OR to avoid a military conflict with Iran, even if it means they may develop nuclear weapons?" .

Prevent from
developing
nuclear
weapons Avoid military
conflict Neither (vol.) Both (vol.) Unsure
% % % % %


64 25 3 1 7
2/8-12/12

58 30 2 1 10
9/30 - 10/4/09

61 24 4 1 10

 

[NotfooledbyW]

CHrL 10960413

Are you actually saying that you think the majority of Americans approve of a nuclear Iran? Is that your argument here?

Where is the poll that says Americans oppose the negotiations that have been going on since 2013 when the question includes bargaining that allows Iran to have peaceful nuckear power? 60% of respondents approve of making a deal.

 

[ChrisL]

CHrL 10960413

Are you actually saying that you think the majority of Americans approve of a nuclear Iran? Is that your argument here?

Where is the poll that says Americans oppose the negotiations that have been going on since 2013 when the question includes bargaining that allows Iran to have peaceful nuckear power? 60% of respondents approve of making a deal.

Link?

 

[ChrisL]

CHrL 10960413

Are you actually saying that you think the majority of Americans approve of a nuclear Iran? Is that your argument here?

Where is the poll that says Americans oppose the negotiations that have been going on since 2013 when the question includes bargaining that allows Iran to have peaceful nuckear power? 60% of respondents approve of making a deal.

BTW, post more than one poll that shows Americans approve. Also, when specifically asked, Americans do not trust Iran to keep their nuclear program "peaceful" and we all pretty much know that is not why they want nuclear power.

 

[Lakhota]

'EMBARRASSED' FOR SABOTEUR SENATORS

Thank you, President Obama, for keeping us safe. I'm sorry for the homegrown NaziCon saboteurs in our midst.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ChrL 10960444

And this specific excerpt . . . which notes that 64% of Americans feel it is more important to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons even if it means taking military action.

What does that have to do with the current negotiations. I don't want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.

If they go there after signing a deal that they won't develop a nuclear weapon or enrich uranium beyond a certain point hell yes bomb their facility before they can do it.

The majority of Americans support the negotiations that are currently underway and they support bombing Iran if they fail to live up to that treaty,


ChrL 10956880

That does not mean they cannot express their disagreement on the matter and to let Iran know that most American citizens do not agree with Mr. Obama

So you lied. Because you cannot produce a poll that says the majority of Americans oppose making this deal allowing the peaceful use of nuclear energy if it can be reached and verifiable.

Obama is not agreeing to allow Iran to produce a nuclear bomb just like the other P4+1.

Thanks for pointing out the specific poll you had in mind so we could get you straightened out.

Next time go to what you are referring to right from the start.

 

[Kondor3]

The Republicans in Congress, and, indeed, vast numbers of Americans, no longer trust Barack Obama - if they ever did.

The President has served up a legacy of Weak Diplomacy and Bad Deals and Cry-Wolf Red Lines in the Sand.

The Republican Congressional letter to Iran is merely the latest manifestation of this particular state of affairs.

The letter is unprecedented.

So is the profound absence of trust in the President.

 

[idb]

Does any one else wonder why Reagan and company were sooooo damn trusting of the Iranians during the Iran-Contra scandal??

Just asking........

I don't think I was born yet then and don't really care. What I do care about is Iran having nuclear power.

You don't want them to have nuclear power?
Such arrogance.

Are they allowed hydro, solar, gas, kittens...?
What form of power would you magnanimously give permission to the sovereign country of Iran to possess?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

'Mistrust Is Growing': European Leaders Blast GOP Senators for Letter to Iran
7 min ago - 'Mistrust Is Growing': European Leaders Blast GOP Senators for Letter to Iran 'This is not just an issue of American domestic politics, but it affects the negotiations we are holding in Geneva,' said German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. A ... (Common Dreams)

 

[Billo_Really]

BTW, post more than one poll that shows Americans approve. Also, when specifically asked, Americans do not trust Iran to keep their nuclear program "peaceful" and we all pretty much know that is not why they want nuclear power.

And you know this how?

 

[Billo_Really]

The Republicans in Congress, and, indeed, vast numbers of Americans, no longer trust Barack Obama - if they ever did.

The President has served up a legacy of Weak Diplomacy and Bad Deals and Cry-Wolf Red Lines in the Sand.

The Republican Congressional letter to Iran is merely the latest manifestation of this particular state of affairs.

The letter is unprecedented.

So is the profound absence of trust in the President.

They're trained seals, doing Israel's bidding, like the bitches that they are.