What is the real reason that the GOP does not want a deal with Iran?

[Liminal]

But of course if we launch airstrikes on Iran they'll stop doing that. Right?

Yes.

Really Field Marshall? How would it do that? If they have underground secret sites, how would you guarantee that we destroyed them all?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Beep Beep

 

[2aguy]

Here....read the framework of the deal and come back and tell me it is a bad one.

The Iran nuclear deal translated into plain English - Vox

yes....and the frame work for peace with Germany was spot on as well....but if the terrorist government won't abide by the terms...it doesn't matter how pixie dust wonderful those terms are does it?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[healthmyths]

Here....read the framework of the deal and come back and tell me it is a bad one.

The Iran nuclear deal translated into plain English - Vox

yes....and the frame work for peace with Germany was spot on as well....but if the terrorist government won't abide by the terms...it doesn't matter how pixie dust wonderful those terms are does it?

Let's break this out for a quick history lesson....
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration."
It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.

Peace for our time - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Here....read the framework of the deal and come back and tell me it is a bad one.

The Iran nuclear deal translated into plain English - Vox

yes....and the frame work for peace with Germany was spot on as well....but if the terrorist government won't abide by the terms...it doesn't matter how pixie dust wonderful those terms are does it?

Let's break this out for a quick history lesson....
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration."
It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.

Peace for our time - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Iran is not Germany ...

 

[Liminal]

Here....read the framework of the deal and come back and tell me it is a bad one.

The Iran nuclear deal translated into plain English - Vox

yes....and the frame work for peace with Germany was spot on as well....but if the terrorist government won't abide by the terms...it doesn't matter how pixie dust wonderful those terms are does it?

Let's break this out for a quick history lesson....
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration."
It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.

Peace for our time - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Does this mean Iran is about to invade Poland?

 

[2aguy]

Really.....there inability to put Jews in concentration camps because they can't get their tyranny organized doesn't mean they won't try their best to get it done.....they have the same mentality......and are working on stated goals and as we are negotiating with them their leaders are openly saying death to America....as our moron in Chief is giving them what they want......

It is true what I say...for liberals, history starts each day when they wake up....everything that went before never happened...

 

[2aguy]

come on.....are you guys serious or just playing with us....?

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Its just a little bit odd that the American Senators loudly claiming Iran cannot be trusted to fulfill any deal are simultaneously pledging that they will not fulfill any deal....isn't that called suspicious .............Ironic ?

just saying.......

 

[Liminal]

Its just a little bit odd that the American Senators loudly claiming Iran cannot be trusted to fulfill any deal are simultaneously pledging that they will not fulfill any deal....isn't that called suspicious .............Ironic ?

just saying.......

Ironic? That's one word for it. I was thinking "two faced" and "double dealing" would be appropriate descriptions of their actions.

 

[bendog]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iraq, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

 

[Liminal]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

 

[rdean]

Republicans want to stop a nuclear deal with Iran. They may have ensured Obama gets one Comment is free The Guardian


"If no deal is reached, what does the Senate GOP think will happen? Peace on earth and goodwill to men? Iran will continue to build up its nuclear program, and the world will eventually face a stark choice between Iran being a screwdriver’s turn away from a nuclear bomb, or using its own traditional bombs inIranand starting a disastrous war."

So what is the reason the GOP does not want a deal with Iran? There is one HUGE reason and it has nothing to do with security, world peace, or even Iran. The GOP does not want to give Obama another victory. They know if Obama gets a deal with Iran, their chances of winning the WH go down to near 0%. It is all a repub political game.

They're making a huge mistake.

The senate doesn't have to approve the agreement. They just have to advise.

The large majority of the people in America want an agreement and don't want war. If the republicans do anything more to prevent this agreement they will have a nation of very angry people to deal with and it won't be pretty.

But the republicans aren't that smart. They're just acting like spoiled brat children. So I don't expect them to make the right choices and they will regret it.

Oh, we want an agreement and don't want a war. We just want competent people to negotiate the deal and the right to reject a bad deal.

Competent people? Competent? Name one competent Republican. And please, don't make it George Bush or Sarah Palin.

 

[rdean]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

Did he think Saddam was in Iran?

 

[bendog]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

Did he think Saddam was in Iran?

sorry dean, I mistyped. I fixed it, I think

 

[healthmyths]

Here....read the framework of the deal and come back and tell me it is a bad one.

The Iran nuclear deal translated into plain English - Vox

yes....and the frame work for peace with Germany was spot on as well....but if the terrorist government won't abide by the terms...it doesn't matter how pixie dust wonderful those terms are does it?

Let's break this out for a quick history lesson....
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration."
It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.

Peace for our time - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Iran is not Germany ...

No. And times are different for sure.
But you are obviously too young to remember what happened in 1979..much less WWII.
Which is too bad because there is a value in learning from history which sad to say seems to be shrift in many people today.

 

[bendog]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Here....read the framework of the deal and come back and tell me it is a bad one.

The Iran nuclear deal translated into plain English - Vox

yes....and the frame work for peace with Germany was spot on as well....but if the terrorist government won't abide by the terms...it doesn't matter how pixie dust wonderful those terms are does it?

Let's break this out for a quick history lesson....
The phrase "Peace for Our Time" was spoken on 30 September 1938 by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in his speech concerning the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Declaration."
It is primarily remembered for its ironic value: less than a year after the agreement, following continued aggression from Hitler and his invasion of Poland, Europe was plunged into World War II.

Peace for our time - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Iran is not Germany ...

No. And times are different for sure.
But you are obviously too young to remember what happened in 1979..much less WWII.
Which is too bad because there is a value in learning from history which sad to say seems to be shrift in many people today.

I remember history March 19, 2003 a date that will live in Infamy............

 

[healthmyths]

I think Ernie summed it up, though suggesting Obama wants Iran to have nuclear weapons, puts him in the nutter stands. But, the rational people opposing this deal in particular think we can get a better deal, in which Tehran will give up a nuclear program entirely, and that Iran can be persuaded to do this with more sanctions. Jeffrey Goldberg terms this deal "the least worse option" doubts this premise, and so do I, but for reasons a bit different from his.

"War would not end the Iranian nuclear challenge. Israeli strikes, and certainly U.S. strikes, could destroy much of the physical infrastructure of the Iranian nuclear program, but cruise missiles cannot destroy knowledge, and I doubt they could destroy the will of the regime. Iran would rebuild those facilities, and would do so free from the burden of international sanctions, which would most likely crumble after such a preventative attack. Sanctions, too, were not bringing Iran to total capitulation. I do think that sanctions concentrated the attention of the regime, and that additional sanctions might have helped improve America's negotiating position. But the Iranian regime was not going to capitulate in the face of a collapsing economy. It would have adapted."

The Iran Nuclear Deal Obama Chooses the Least-Worst Option The Atlantic

I recall the sanctions on Iran, and those sanctions really did shut down Saddam's nuclear program, and the threat of war allowed inspectors to have free access, which the present framework for an agreement requires. Yet, even when el-Baradi found no evidence of a nuclear program, the GD neocons invaded the place anyway, and in doing so we allied the Iraqi Sunnis with Al Queda. So, I don't believe for a second that ALL the pols saying "we need tougher sanctions" will ever support any agreement, and just want to opt for war, and the sooner the better. Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to Iran, and we really didn't win in Iraq.

France and Germany both say they haven't seen enough from Iran to support withdrawing any sanctions. Sadly, I'm sure they're saner than Cotton of Boom Boom McCain, and I suspect they'll require more from Iran that would Obama.

In other words: Republicans don't have a solution.

I don't think I said that. I don't think all gopers want to invade regardless. I think they have to give lip service to Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel, even if they know that to be total Netanyahu bulltripe. I agree with Goldberg that sanctions in and of themselves probably will not get the Republican Guard to give up the entire nuclear program. But, if they're just saying we don't know enough of what Iran is giving up to know if this is good enough.

What "Republican Guard" are you referring too?
The Iraqi Republican Guard (Arabic: حرس العراقي الجمهوري‎ ""Ḥaris al-‘Irāq al-Jamhūriyy") was a branch of the Iraqi military from 1969 to 2003, primarily during the presidency of Saddam Hussein. It later became the Republican Guard Corps, and then the Republican Guard Forces Command (RGFC) with its expansion into two corps. The Republican Guard was disbanded in 2003, after the invasion of Iraq by a U.S.-led international coalition.
I didn't know Iran also had a "Republican Guard".