Time to Call Obama and Kerry What They Are Traitors

[Bfgrn]

bfgrn

How narrow minded you are to think this is only about nuclear weapons this also includes stability in the area, influence in the region and most of all peace without using US or any other forces.


"Iran’s destabilizing behavior
Iran’s subversion and proxy network is vast, stretching geographically from Latin America to Afghanistan. This network conducts terrorism, organizes and supports sectarian militias, and generally foments instability from Argentina to Iraq. These activities do not cost Tehran much financially—support for both Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria is estimated to have cost Iran less than $10 billion last year—but they are sufficient to sow chaos in the Middle East and beyond.

Tehran has three main organizations through which it spreads regional instability and sectarian strife: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Quds Force, or IRGC-QF; the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security; and Lebanese Hezbollah. Though the U.S. State Department identifies the Quds Force as “the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad,” all three organizations work together to further Iranian interests in the Middle East.

Tehran’s fingerprints can be seen on virtually all of the region’s conflicts. It supplies missiles and rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, which are then fired at Israel. Iran supplies the Assad regime with money, Iranian troops, and a supply of foreign Shia militiamen and backs sectarian militias in Iraq that undermine the authority of the government in Baghdad. More recently, Tehran has been accused of supplying arms to the Houthi rebels who have seized control of much of Yemen."

Countering Iran s Destabilizing Actions in the Middle East Center for American Progress

Obama slinked and slithered his way to weakening any foothold the US had in the region, perhaps in a short time we will have a leader who is not self serving and strong enough return the US to a strong position and help our allies in the area.

And how stupid are you? You post from an article and don't even READ the first paragraph...
You are wrong...THIS IS ONLY ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The treaty addresses NOTHING ELSE. Yes, Iran is a bad actor, but would you want a bad actor with nuclear weapons? How BAD would that be??

From YOUR article...

The newly negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran still has to be reviewed by Congress, but it offers the United States and its allies the historic opportunity to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program and prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon for at least the next decade. This agreement is vital to U.S. national security, but it is important to recognize that it has a specific purpose: reining in Iran’s nuclear program. It does not address the rest of Iran’s malicious international behavior simply because it is not intended to do so.

Yea, like America, Iran has their own ultra-conservatives like the Ayatollah who want to kill, blow up and destroy...it is what conservatives do...

The article is more in depth than the first paragraph as are the negative repercussions of the agreement.


"The nuclear agreement was a necessary step to most effectively block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it is unlikely to change Iran’s bad behavior—which in turn is causing great apprehension among the United States’ allies in the region."

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Alex.]

bfgrn

How narrow minded you are to think this is only about nuclear weapons this also includes stability in the area, influence in the region and most of all peace without using US or any other forces.


"Iran’s destabilizing behavior
Iran’s subversion and proxy network is vast, stretching geographically from Latin America to Afghanistan. This network conducts terrorism, organizes and supports sectarian militias, and generally foments instability from Argentina to Iraq. These activities do not cost Tehran much financially—support for both Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria is estimated to have cost Iran less than $10 billion last year—but they are sufficient to sow chaos in the Middle East and beyond.

Tehran has three main organizations through which it spreads regional instability and sectarian strife: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Quds Force, or IRGC-QF; the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security; and Lebanese Hezbollah. Though the U.S. State Department identifies the Quds Force as “the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad,” all three organizations work together to further Iranian interests in the Middle East.

Tehran’s fingerprints can be seen on virtually all of the region’s conflicts. It supplies missiles and rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, which are then fired at Israel. Iran supplies the Assad regime with money, Iranian troops, and a supply of foreign Shia militiamen and backs sectarian militias in Iraq that undermine the authority of the government in Baghdad. More recently, Tehran has been accused of supplying arms to the Houthi rebels who have seized control of much of Yemen."

Countering Iran s Destabilizing Actions in the Middle East Center for American Progress

Obama slinked and slithered his way to weakening any foothold the US had in the region, perhaps in a short time we will have a leader who is not self serving and strong enough return the US to a strong position and help our allies in the area.

And how stupid are you? You post from an article and don't even READ the first paragraph...
You are wrong...THIS IS ONLY ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The treaty addresses NOTHING ELSE. Yes, Iran is a bad actor, but would you want a bad actor with nuclear weapons? How BAD would that be??

From YOUR article...

The newly negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran still has to be reviewed by Congress, but it offers the United States and its allies the historic opportunity to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program and prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon for at least the next decade. This agreement is vital to U.S. national security, but it is important to recognize that it has a specific purpose: reining in Iran’s nuclear program. It does not address the rest of Iran’s malicious international behavior simply because it is not intended to do so.

Yea, like America, Iran has their own ultra-conservatives like the Ayatollah who want to kill, blow up and destroy...it is what conservatives do...

The article is more in depth than the first paragraph as are the negative repercussions of the agreement.


"The nuclear agreement was a necessary step to most effectively block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it is unlikely to change Iran’s bad behavior—which in turn is causing great apprehension among the United States’ allies in the region."

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Yes we are talking about the treaty there is a ripple effect that should have been addressed and taken into account, Obama left everyone flapping in the wind on those issues thereby weakening an already tenuous position held by the US in the Mid East.

 

[Bfgrn]

bfgrn

How narrow minded you are to think this is only about nuclear weapons this also includes stability in the area, influence in the region and most of all peace without using US or any other forces.


"Iran’s destabilizing behavior
Iran’s subversion and proxy network is vast, stretching geographically from Latin America to Afghanistan. This network conducts terrorism, organizes and supports sectarian militias, and generally foments instability from Argentina to Iraq. These activities do not cost Tehran much financially—support for both Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria is estimated to have cost Iran less than $10 billion last year—but they are sufficient to sow chaos in the Middle East and beyond.

Tehran has three main organizations through which it spreads regional instability and sectarian strife: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Quds Force, or IRGC-QF; the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security; and Lebanese Hezbollah. Though the U.S. State Department identifies the Quds Force as “the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad,” all three organizations work together to further Iranian interests in the Middle East.

Tehran’s fingerprints can be seen on virtually all of the region’s conflicts. It supplies missiles and rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, which are then fired at Israel. Iran supplies the Assad regime with money, Iranian troops, and a supply of foreign Shia militiamen and backs sectarian militias in Iraq that undermine the authority of the government in Baghdad. More recently, Tehran has been accused of supplying arms to the Houthi rebels who have seized control of much of Yemen."

Countering Iran s Destabilizing Actions in the Middle East Center for American Progress

Obama slinked and slithered his way to weakening any foothold the US had in the region, perhaps in a short time we will have a leader who is not self serving and strong enough return the US to a strong position and help our allies in the area.

And how stupid are you? You post from an article and don't even READ the first paragraph...
You are wrong...THIS IS ONLY ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The treaty addresses NOTHING ELSE. Yes, Iran is a bad actor, but would you want a bad actor with nuclear weapons? How BAD would that be??

From YOUR article...

The newly negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran still has to be reviewed by Congress, but it offers the United States and its allies the historic opportunity to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program and prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon for at least the next decade. This agreement is vital to U.S. national security, but it is important to recognize that it has a specific purpose: reining in Iran’s nuclear program. It does not address the rest of Iran’s malicious international behavior simply because it is not intended to do so.

Yea, like America, Iran has their own ultra-conservatives like the Ayatollah who want to kill, blow up and destroy...it is what conservatives do...

The article is more in depth than the first paragraph as are the negative repercussions of the agreement.


"The nuclear agreement was a necessary step to most effectively block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it is unlikely to change Iran’s bad behavior—which in turn is causing great apprehension among the United States’ allies in the region."

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Yes we are talking about the treaty there is a ripple effect that should have been addressed and taken into account, Obama left everyone flapping in the wind on those issues thereby weakening an already tenuous position held by the US in the Mid East.

You are naive and a dreamer...there will never be a 'treaty' that will address the issues you want addressed.

The only 'ripple' effect is the world will be dealing with an Iran without nuclear weapons. That is ALL the treaty addressed.

The rest of your accusations are pure bullshit.

 

[MathewSmith]

He is bankrupting the nation with trillion dollar deficits that has resulted in over $18 trillion debt.He repeatedly brazenly lied to Americans about his landmark legislation - Obamacare - which has contributed to worsening America's economic malaise. Bravo!

 

[August West]

He is bankrupting the nation with trillion dollar deficits that has resulted in over $18 trillion debt.He repeatedly brazenly lied to Americans about his landmark legislation - Obamacare - which has contributed to worsening America's economic malaise. Bravo!

Indeed he made it worse! If the DOW loses 10,000 points tomorrow it will still be in a better place than where Gomer left it! Oh the humanity! Cutting taxes and starting 2 wars and putting them on a credit card was a stroke of financial genius was it not?

 

[Wildman]

You right wing turds only offer ONE solution...

Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran...

Scum? The right are THE scum of mankind...

.......,
you fucking libertraitors would defend Hitler if he were alive today..., but your alternative is HITLERY !!

 

[Wildman]

Unadulterated right wing BULLSHIT

WOW ! another lefturd traitor, what a surprise !!

 

[August West]

You right wing turds only offer ONE solution...

Bomb, bomb, bomb...bomb, bomb Iran...

Scum? The right are THE scum of mankind...

.......,
you fucking libertraitors would defend Hitler if he were alive today..., but your alternative is HITLERY !!

I`m glad you`re not old enough to vote. When you get to jr. high you might learn who Hitler was but of course you`ll need to say goodbye to home schooling.

 

[Dragonlady]

bfgrn

How narrow minded you are to think this is only about nuclear weapons this also includes stability in the area, influence in the region and most of all peace without using US or any other forces.


"Iran’s destabilizing behavior
Iran’s subversion and proxy network is vast, stretching geographically from Latin America to Afghanistan. This network conducts terrorism, organizes and supports sectarian militias, and generally foments instability from Argentina to Iraq. These activities do not cost Tehran much financially—support for both Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria is estimated to have cost Iran less than $10 billion last year—but they are sufficient to sow chaos in the Middle East and beyond.

Tehran has three main organizations through which it spreads regional instability and sectarian strife: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Quds Force, or IRGC-QF; the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security; and Lebanese Hezbollah. Though the U.S. State Department identifies the Quds Force as “the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad,” all three organizations work together to further Iranian interests in the Middle East.

Tehran’s fingerprints can be seen on virtually all of the region’s conflicts. It supplies missiles and rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, which are then fired at Israel. Iran supplies the Assad regime with money, Iranian troops, and a supply of foreign Shia militiamen and backs sectarian militias in Iraq that undermine the authority of the government in Baghdad. More recently, Tehran has been accused of supplying arms to the Houthi rebels who have seized control of much of Yemen."

Countering Iran s Destabilizing Actions in the Middle East Center for American Progress

Obama slinked and slithered his way to weakening any foothold the US had in the region, perhaps in a short time we will have a leader who is not self serving and strong enough return the US to a strong position and help our allies in the area.

And how stupid are you? You post from an article and don't even READ the first paragraph...
You are wrong...THIS IS ONLY ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The treaty addresses NOTHING ELSE. Yes, Iran is a bad actor, but would you want a bad actor with nuclear weapons? How BAD would that be??

From YOUR article...

The newly negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran still has to be reviewed by Congress, but it offers the United States and its allies the historic opportunity to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program and prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon for at least the next decade. This agreement is vital to U.S. national security, but it is important to recognize that it has a specific purpose: reining in Iran’s nuclear program. It does not address the rest of Iran’s malicious international behavior simply because it is not intended to do so.

Yea, like America, Iran has their own ultra-conservatives like the Ayatollah who want to kill, blow up and destroy...it is what conservatives do...

The article is more in depth than the first paragraph as are the negative repercussions of the agreement.


"The nuclear agreement was a necessary step to most effectively block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it is unlikely to change Iran’s bad behavior—which in turn is causing great apprehension among the United States’ allies in the region."

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Yes we are talking about the treaty there is a ripple effect that should have been addressed and taken into account, Obama left everyone flapping in the wind on those issues thereby weakening an already tenuous position held by the US in the Mid East.

Perhaps the US should have considered the impact of leaving Iran as the strongest power in the Middle East before they took out Saddam Hussein.

Alex, your claims that you are qualified to know whether this is a good deal or a bad one seem to be grossly exaggerated. Your knowledge of the political dynamics of the region are seriously lacking, which should be one of the two primary considerations when discussing this treaty. Anyone can claim to be anything they like on an internet message board. You have proven yourself to be liar.

 

[Alex.]

bfgrn

How narrow minded you are to think this is only about nuclear weapons this also includes stability in the area, influence in the region and most of all peace without using US or any other forces.


"Iran’s destabilizing behavior
Iran’s subversion and proxy network is vast, stretching geographically from Latin America to Afghanistan. This network conducts terrorism, organizes and supports sectarian militias, and generally foments instability from Argentina to Iraq. These activities do not cost Tehran much financially—support for both Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria is estimated to have cost Iran less than $10 billion last year—but they are sufficient to sow chaos in the Middle East and beyond.

Tehran has three main organizations through which it spreads regional instability and sectarian strife: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Quds Force, or IRGC-QF; the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security; and Lebanese Hezbollah. Though the U.S. State Department identifies the Quds Force as “the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad,” all three organizations work together to further Iranian interests in the Middle East.

Tehran’s fingerprints can be seen on virtually all of the region’s conflicts. It supplies missiles and rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, which are then fired at Israel. Iran supplies the Assad regime with money, Iranian troops, and a supply of foreign Shia militiamen and backs sectarian militias in Iraq that undermine the authority of the government in Baghdad. More recently, Tehran has been accused of supplying arms to the Houthi rebels who have seized control of much of Yemen."

Countering Iran s Destabilizing Actions in the Middle East Center for American Progress

Obama slinked and slithered his way to weakening any foothold the US had in the region, perhaps in a short time we will have a leader who is not self serving and strong enough return the US to a strong position and help our allies in the area.

And how stupid are you? You post from an article and don't even READ the first paragraph...
You are wrong...THIS IS ONLY ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The treaty addresses NOTHING ELSE. Yes, Iran is a bad actor, but would you want a bad actor with nuclear weapons? How BAD would that be??

From YOUR article...

The newly negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran still has to be reviewed by Congress, but it offers the United States and its allies the historic opportunity to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program and prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon for at least the next decade. This agreement is vital to U.S. national security, but it is important to recognize that it has a specific purpose: reining in Iran’s nuclear program. It does not address the rest of Iran’s malicious international behavior simply because it is not intended to do so.

Yea, like America, Iran has their own ultra-conservatives like the Ayatollah who want to kill, blow up and destroy...it is what conservatives do...

The article is more in depth than the first paragraph as are the negative repercussions of the agreement.


"The nuclear agreement was a necessary step to most effectively block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it is unlikely to change Iran’s bad behavior—which in turn is causing great apprehension among the United States’ allies in the region."

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Yes we are talking about the treaty there is a ripple effect that should have been addressed and taken into account, Obama left everyone flapping in the wind on those issues thereby weakening an already tenuous position held by the US in the Mid East.

You are naive and a dreamer...there will never be a 'treaty' that will address the issues you want addressed.

The only 'ripple' effect is the world will be dealing with an Iran without nuclear weapons. That is ALL the treaty addressed.

The rest of your accusations are pure bullshit.

Of courser all measures should be taken into consideration. Obama is not the only one who was involved with the drafting of the agreement and presumably the effects of institutionalizing it. Obama knew what would happen with our allies in the Mid East, they are not happy nor should they be.

 

[Alex.]

bfgrn

How narrow minded you are to think this is only about nuclear weapons this also includes stability in the area, influence in the region and most of all peace without using US or any other forces.


"Iran’s destabilizing behavior
Iran’s subversion and proxy network is vast, stretching geographically from Latin America to Afghanistan. This network conducts terrorism, organizes and supports sectarian militias, and generally foments instability from Argentina to Iraq. These activities do not cost Tehran much financially—support for both Hezbollah and the Assad regime in Syria is estimated to have cost Iran less than $10 billion last year—but they are sufficient to sow chaos in the Middle East and beyond.

Tehran has three main organizations through which it spreads regional instability and sectarian strife: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—Quds Force, or IRGC-QF; the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security; and Lebanese Hezbollah. Though the U.S. State Department identifies the Quds Force as “the regime’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad,” all three organizations work together to further Iranian interests in the Middle East.

Tehran’s fingerprints can be seen on virtually all of the region’s conflicts. It supplies missiles and rockets to Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian Territories, which are then fired at Israel. Iran supplies the Assad regime with money, Iranian troops, and a supply of foreign Shia militiamen and backs sectarian militias in Iraq that undermine the authority of the government in Baghdad. More recently, Tehran has been accused of supplying arms to the Houthi rebels who have seized control of much of Yemen."

Countering Iran s Destabilizing Actions in the Middle East Center for American Progress

Obama slinked and slithered his way to weakening any foothold the US had in the region, perhaps in a short time we will have a leader who is not self serving and strong enough return the US to a strong position and help our allies in the area.

And how stupid are you? You post from an article and don't even READ the first paragraph...
You are wrong...THIS IS ONLY ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The treaty addresses NOTHING ELSE. Yes, Iran is a bad actor, but would you want a bad actor with nuclear weapons? How BAD would that be??

From YOUR article...

The newly negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran still has to be reviewed by Congress, but it offers the United States and its allies the historic opportunity to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program and prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon for at least the next decade. This agreement is vital to U.S. national security, but it is important to recognize that it has a specific purpose: reining in Iran’s nuclear program. It does not address the rest of Iran’s malicious international behavior simply because it is not intended to do so.

Yea, like America, Iran has their own ultra-conservatives like the Ayatollah who want to kill, blow up and destroy...it is what conservatives do...

The article is more in depth than the first paragraph as are the negative repercussions of the agreement.


"The nuclear agreement was a necessary step to most effectively block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it is unlikely to change Iran’s bad behavior—which in turn is causing great apprehension among the United States’ allies in the region."

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Yes we are talking about the treaty there is a ripple effect that should have been addressed and taken into account, Obama left everyone flapping in the wind on those issues thereby weakening an already tenuous position held by the US in the Mid East.

Perhaps the US should have considered the impact of leaving Iran as the strongest power in the Middle East before they took out Saddam Hussein.

Alex, your claims that you are qualified to know whether this is a good deal or a bad one seem to be grossly exaggerated. Your knowledge of the political dynamics of the region are seriously lacking, which should be one of the two primary considerations when discussing this treaty. Anyone can claim to be anything they like on an internet message board. You have proven yourself to be liar.

LOL you know nothing about me, my experience or my education therefore you have non basis to make such an outlandish statement.


BTW you are qualified too, now how about discussing the OP instead of personally attacking me; if you can.

 

[Bfgrn]

And how stupid are you? You post from an article and don't even READ the first paragraph...
You are wrong...THIS IS ONLY ABOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The treaty addresses NOTHING ELSE. Yes, Iran is a bad actor, but would you want a bad actor with nuclear weapons? How BAD would that be??

From YOUR article...

The newly negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran still has to be reviewed by Congress, but it offers the United States and its allies the historic opportunity to restrain Tehran’s nuclear program and prevent the country from acquiring a nuclear weapon for at least the next decade. This agreement is vital to U.S. national security, but it is important to recognize that it has a specific purpose: reining in Iran’s nuclear program. It does not address the rest of Iran’s malicious international behavior simply because it is not intended to do so.

Yea, like America, Iran has their own ultra-conservatives like the Ayatollah who want to kill, blow up and destroy...it is what conservatives do...

The article is more in depth than the first paragraph as are the negative repercussions of the agreement.


"The nuclear agreement was a necessary step to most effectively block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it is unlikely to change Iran’s bad behavior—which in turn is causing great apprehension among the United States’ allies in the region."

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Yes we are talking about the treaty there is a ripple effect that should have been addressed and taken into account, Obama left everyone flapping in the wind on those issues thereby weakening an already tenuous position held by the US in the Mid East.

You are naive and a dreamer...there will never be a 'treaty' that will address the issues you want addressed.

The only 'ripple' effect is the world will be dealing with an Iran without nuclear weapons. That is ALL the treaty addressed.

The rest of your accusations are pure bullshit.

Of courser all measures should be taken into consideration. Obama is not the only one who was involved with the drafting of the agreement and presumably the effects of institutionalizing it. Obama knew what would happen with our allies in the Mid East, they are not happy nor should they be.

You are looking for a Treaty of Versailles where a war victor gets to dictate terms. You really ARE naive.

I will post President Kennedy's words of wisdom again...

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

 

[Alex.]

The article is more in depth than the first paragraph as are the negative repercussions of the agreement.


"The nuclear agreement was a necessary step to most effectively block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, but it is unlikely to change Iran’s bad behavior—which in turn is causing great apprehension among the United States’ allies in the region."

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Yes we are talking about the treaty there is a ripple effect that should have been addressed and taken into account, Obama left everyone flapping in the wind on those issues thereby weakening an already tenuous position held by the US in the Mid East.

You are naive and a dreamer...there will never be a 'treaty' that will address the issues you want addressed.

The only 'ripple' effect is the world will be dealing with an Iran without nuclear weapons. That is ALL the treaty addressed.

The rest of your accusations are pure bullshit.

Of courser all measures should be taken into consideration. Obama is not the only one who was involved with the drafting of the agreement and presumably the effects of institutionalizing it. Obama knew what would happen with our allies in the Mid East, they are not happy nor should they be.

You are looking for a Treaty of Versailles where a war victor gets to dictate terms. You really ARE naive.

I will post President Kennedy's words of wisdom again...

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

I deal in realty, not thinking in terms of how things "ought" to be. This is another Obama misstep of historic proportions. He should have looked at what he was doing before he did it, perhaps he did not caring what the consequences may be.

 

[Bfgrn]

Of course the article is more in depth, but the treaty serves one purpose, and one purpose only...

We ARE talking about the treaty here..

The article doesn't say there are negative repercussions of the agreement...you are making this shit up as you go.

The MOST destabilizing act in the middle east was made by America...

Removing Saddam Hussein from power destabilized the entire Middle East and handed Iran the opportunity to extend its sphere of influence throughout the region. Why? Because Saddam was Sunni. His military dictatorship created a balance of power standoff with Iran (predominantly Shiite)


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

Yes we are talking about the treaty there is a ripple effect that should have been addressed and taken into account, Obama left everyone flapping in the wind on those issues thereby weakening an already tenuous position held by the US in the Mid East.

You are naive and a dreamer...there will never be a 'treaty' that will address the issues you want addressed.

The only 'ripple' effect is the world will be dealing with an Iran without nuclear weapons. That is ALL the treaty addressed.

The rest of your accusations are pure bullshit.

Of courser all measures should be taken into consideration. Obama is not the only one who was involved with the drafting of the agreement and presumably the effects of institutionalizing it. Obama knew what would happen with our allies in the Mid East, they are not happy nor should they be.

You are looking for a Treaty of Versailles where a war victor gets to dictate terms. You really ARE naive.

I will post President Kennedy's words of wisdom again...

"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

I deal in realty, not thinking in terms of how things "ought" to be. This is another Obama misstep of historic proportions. He should have looked at what he was doing before he did it, perhaps he did not caring what the consequences may be.

Seriously? Keeping Iran from having nuclear weapons is HUGE. There is NOTHING that even comes close to that VITAL issue. It is obvious you don't know anything about nuclear weapons.

Reality? The reality IS...the Ayatollah would never allow the government sign a deal that would dictate their involvement in foreign affairs.

Our best hope is the younger generation in Iran will begin to liberalize the country. My bet is the Ayatollah does not reflect the views of the Iranian people.

 

[Alex.]

Really?

"Iran is a sovereign state, and a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As such, the country — even in spite of its years of misleading the international community on its nuclear program — has been given a say over how the agreement unfolds. Whether the deal is successful or not depends on how Iran wields that control and how it decides on key issues that the agreement has made semi-voluntary.

Note the "voluntary commitments" language. This means that Iran will submit its own long-term fuel cycle intentions to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which will then use those "voluntary commitments" as a guideline for formulating Iranian obligations under the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (AP), a legally binding series of country-specific safeguards on nuclear development."

The Iran deal is immediately going to face this huge problem - Business Insider

Obama is pwned and served up with an apple in his mousy mouth.

 

[skye]

......................................................................................................


Our best hope is the younger generation in Iran will begin to liberalize the country. My bet is the Ayatollah does not reflect the views of the Iranian people.
.

Dream on!

The next generation have no chance of toppling the current Regime who are far too powerful and ruthless!

And in any case, when the "Green Revolution" occurred, Obama did absolutely nothing to encourage them, as he obviously is quite happy with the present enemy of the West being in power.

If Obama did not have misguided confidence in the current lot, then he would not have given them the opportunity of making the bomb, on a silver plate.

This deal will benefit the US 0% and Iran 100%.

All these actions fully demonstrate where Hussein Obama true simpathies are...and they are not with the US.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not only are your analysis wrong, they discount the fact that in Iran, as in the US, the old generation is dying, and will be gone, for the most part, in a decade.

As for your accusations concerning our President, it simply proves that you are partisan to the point of mental instability. And 20Jan17, the baton will be passed, and we will have a new President, that you can also accuse of treason. And be ignored by all once again, as a useless partisan fool.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Deal is so lame that he couldn't even get our 4 people back for the 160 BILLION. Much of it could be their within a year.............

Lame ass Potus.

 

[Alex.]

The Deal is so lame that he couldn't even get our 4 people back for the 160 BILLION. Much of it could be their within a year.............

Lame ass Potus.

He did not want them back, otherwise he would have gotten them back.

 

[Bfgrn]

Really?

"Iran is a sovereign state, and a member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. As such, the country — even in spite of its years of misleading the international community on its nuclear program — has been given a say over how the agreement unfolds. Whether the deal is successful or not depends on how Iran wields that control and how it decides on key issues that the agreement has made semi-voluntary.

Note the "voluntary commitments" language. This means that Iran will submit its own long-term fuel cycle intentions to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which will then use those "voluntary commitments" as a guideline for formulating Iranian obligations under the Additional Protocol of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (AP), a legally binding series of country-specific safeguards on nuclear development."

The Iran deal is immediately going to face this huge problem - Business Insider

Obama is pwned and served up with an apple in his mousy mouth.

You are being pwned...so when do we go to war again?

Iran US world powers have delivered a good deal worth supporting Fox News

The nuclear deal with Iran is one of the most significant nonproliferation agreements in history. It reduces the threat of an Iranian bomb and greatly increases our ability to monitor Tehran’s nuclear program. It deserves the support of members of Congress.

The deal blocks Tehran’s pathways to nuclear weapons capability. Iran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be largely eliminated. Iran will not produce any highly-enriched uranium suitable for weapons development. The number of centrifuges in operation will be reduced greatly. The reactor at Arak will be retooled so that it no longer produces weapons-grade plutonium. The breakout timeline for Iran to develop enough material for a nuclear weapon will be four times longer with a deal than without one.

Iran will be subject to the most intrusive inspections regime ever negotiated. Rigorous and unprecedented inspections will detect any Iranian attempt to renege on the deal. International inspectors will have access to all of Iran’s nuclear sites. The International Atomic Energy Agency will receive assurances that there are no military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program.

The current regime of nuclear-related sanctions will be suspended only after the International Atomic Energy Agency verifies that Iran has taken necessary steps to curtail its nuclear program. Sanctions on missile development and arms imports will remain in place for several years. Sanctions on Iran will snap back into force if Iran reneges on its commitments. U.S. sanctions on human rights abuse and support for terrorism will remain in place.

The deal isn’t perfect, but it is a very good. It achieves the priority goal of U.S. and international policy of reducing and placing tight controls on Iran’s nuclear capability.

The claim that we can get a ‘better deal later’ is false. The multilateral sanctions regime that brought Iran to the negotiating table is already starting to fray. If the U.S. Congress rejects the deal after the European states, Russia and the United Nations have agreed, international cooperation in sanctioning Iran will disappear.

A rejection of this deal will give Iran a free pass to pursue unrestrained nuclear development. It will mean the loss of the greater verification access Tehran has now accepted. It will damage U.S. relations with our European partners and undermine future efforts at the UN to restrain proliferation.

Without a deal, the U.S. must either accept an Iranian bomb or use military force in an attempt to destroy the country’s nuclear capability. This will require repeated military strikes and would prompt a violent reaction from Iran that could put Israel and other U.S. allies at risk. The result would be more war, terrorism and anti-American sentiment in the Middle East and beyond.

Nuclear policy and sanctions expert David Cortright is director of policy studies at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies.