So what do opponents of the Iran deal hope to achieve?

[bozack]

This is where the difference between Obama and the Repubs, who had clearly stated that they were going to obstruct him every chance they got to make him a one term president, is stark and glaring.

Obama can point to a list of significant accomplishments during his tenure, whereas all the Repubs can do is point out how they were so unsuccessful at obstructing Obama and the Dems and that because they were so preoccupied with that silly "mission statement" of theirs, they failed to pass any meaningful and significant legislation that actually benefits the nation as a whole. Unless they do something other than continually attempt to make the rich richer and myopically obstruct Obama and the Dems at every turn, that is all that they can claim as "accomplishments" for the whole time Obama has been/will be in office.

You're a one trick pony eh.....as I think I have read this same opener from you what? a bunch of times alone in this thread as well as a few others....

To the poster you're replying to, people keep talking about Obama in the future tense with regards to "items like this" because he will continue to retain "ownership" in the eye of the public and media for years to come after he is out of office, just look at what happened with Bush as even today people still complain about the leftovers from his time in office.

As for Obama's supposed accomplishments, I have never seen a president that has had so much divisiveness around their tenure than I have with this one, everything has had to either be decided or supported by the courts, there was never any attempt to reach across the aisle and work with anyone, if anything it was always played off as a mandate and then forced on the people...

Now you can go back to your argument about how the republicans were out to get him and unreasonable, but to me that is of little merit, as it is the job of the president to be the great mediator between the two parties and bring folks together around a common cause.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

We got next to nothing in the deal...essentially a 2 month breakout vs. a 12 month breakout period....which is nothing in the scheme of things. Meanwhile we release billions and billions of dollars and open trade borders which will undoubtedly result in Iran being more effective in funding their state-sponsored terrorism and further destabilize the region. Bad deal is an understatement....stupid is more like it imo.

...However...trading with Iran and further exposing the Iranian people to American culture might encourage the Iranian populace to oppose funding whatever state-sponsored terrorism they're already imposing.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Next, they want to maintain an irrational electorate, one distracted by their bullshit. It's like Mussolini puffing out his chest. In that, they want to retain the possibility of aggression on our part by maintaining a high tension level.

Benghazi!

Health care, schmealth care! Why focus on minor issues like providing health care for the American people and the economy when there are more important matters to worry about like whether or not Hillary Clinton was responsible for the attack in Benghazi!

 

[WhipperSnapper]

One of the primary concerns regarding the prospect of Iran getting nukes is nuke proliferation race in the M.E. That has already begun. Obama started it when his actions convinced our allies that he wasn't serious about preventing Iran from going nuke.

It's difficult to prevent technologically advanced nations from creating nuclear weapons if they want to. The best response is a policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD)--don't nuke us, and we won't nuke you. It worked for decades with the Soviets.

So, what exactly is the alternative to some sort of a deal with Iran, whether it's MAD or otherwise? Invade Iran?

Are those of you who oppose the treaty advocating an invasion of Iran?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Obama can point to a list of significant accomplishments during his tenure, whereas all the Repubs can do is point out how they were so unsuccessful at obstructing Obama and the Dems and that because they were so preoccupied with that silly "mission statement" of theirs, they failed to pass any meaningful and significant legislation that actually benefits the nation as a whole.

The Republicans can always point to the "accomplishments" of the most recent Republican administration to occupy the White House.

 

[Jaskalas]

You can read the wording of the agreement if you wish. Sanctions will snap back, and there is an implicit understanding that military options are on the table.

Now please address the points I made.

In one breath you'd argue Sanctions are failing. That the US can no longer maintain them.
In another breath you'd argue that Sanctions can "snap" back. Hah!

Sanctions are over. Its time for a nuclear Iran or a war to stop them.
Democrats have chosen a nuclear Iran.

 

[Meghan54]

One of the primary concerns regarding the prospect of Iran getting nukes is nuke proliferation race in the M.E. That has already begun. Obama started it when his actions convinced our allies that he wasn't serious about preventing Iran from going nuke.

It's too late now. The pooch has been well screwed.

Fern

The nuclear proliferation race began in the M.E. when Israel acquired nuclear weapons. And I wonder why Israel won't sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty that almost every other nation on the planet has, including Iran.

 

[Jhhnn]

there was never any attempt to reach across the aisle and work with anyone

Hogwash. He's dealing with bitter & jealous power freaks, the most obstructionist Congress in History.

They're eager to finish what they started w/ trickle down decades ago, impoverishing the middle class, & on engaging in perpetual war. Dirty bastard got in the way.

 

[Jhhnn]

In one breath you'd argue Sanctions are failing. That the US can no longer maintain them.
In another breath you'd argue that Sanctions can "snap" back. Hah!

Sanctions are over. Its time for a nuclear Iran or a war to stop them.
Democrats have chosen a nuclear Iran.

"Nuclear" as in reactor grade fuel enrichment, right? What right do we have to wage war over that?

 

[feralkid]

Well, if 'words on paper' can bomb Iran, fine cuz no one believes Obama will do it. Remember, this is the guy who stood before the whole world and threatened Syria not to cross the "red line". What happened? Not a god damn thing except him losing credibility.

Fern

And that was a good thing, since we'd have been inadvertently helping ISIS.

 

[trenchfoot]

You're a one trick pony eh.....as I think I have read this same opener from you what? a bunch of times alone in this thread as well as a few others....

To the poster you're replying to, people keep talking about Obama in the future tense with regards to "items like this" because he will continue to retain "ownership" in the eye of the public and media for years to come after he is out of office, just look at what happened with Bush as even today people still complain about the leftovers from his time in office.

As for Obama's supposed accomplishments, I have never seen a president that has had so much divisiveness around their tenure than I have with this one, everything has had to either be decided or supported by the courts, there was never any attempt to reach across the aisle and work with anyone, if anything it was always played off as a mandate and then forced on the people...

Now you can go back to your argument about how the republicans were out to get him and unreasonable, but to me that is of little merit, as it is the job of the president to be the great mediator between the two parties and bring folks together around a common cause.

Thanks for perusing my post(s) and commenting on it. You have some very thought provoking ideas that are well worth thinking about.

Please accept my apology for disturbing your patience and inciting your intolerance for an opinion that I believe is worth repeating as needed. I will take your words to heart and keep in mind that I shouldn't apply the principles of influencing people's opinions the way that Karl Rove is most noted for.

As for the bolded, I've always been of the belief that it takes two to tango. When Mitch McConnell clearly stated unequivocally with the determination and resoluteness of a man almost possessed that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president", I really couldn't see things any other way than that he wanted his fellow Repubs to do anything and everything to prevent Obama from being an effective and productive chief executive.

McConnell's following comments inferred that for Obama to get anything done he would, for all practical purposes, have to become a rubber stamp of approval for McConnell's and Boehner's legislative agendas.

Being a mediator infers that there is room to mediate with. McConnell and Boehner both let Obama know that there was no wiggle room involved. It was either give them everything they wanted or no deal.

And even with this laid at his feet two years into his term, IMO, Obama did manage to get some things from the Repubs. But it took Obama to cave time and time again and accede to the Repub's demands that systematically required Obama to give a lot to get a smidgin in return.

Yet, the Repubs weren't happy at all with this most favorable rate of return on their obstructive and damaging war with Obama.

They literally wanted to humiliate him at every turn. They wanted to and mostly succeeded at blocking most everything that was within their power.

But judging from the incessant demeaning rhetoric that followed Obama's every move, that was clearly not good enough, especially after Obama won his second term.

Things really ratcheted up after that monumental failure on the Repub's part. I'm sure you've personally witnessed this yourself, haven't you?

It's common knowledge that there was no mediating to be had with the Repubs declaring war on Obama and his legacy.

I can't understand how that's not clear to you. If you would, please explain why that isn't so.

edit - to the OP, my apologies for getting off topic. Bozak, for that reason, please PM me with your reply. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, if 'words on paper' can bomb Iran, fine cuz no one believes Obama will do it. Remember, this is the guy who stood before the whole world and threatened Syria not to cross the "red line". What happened? Not a god damn thing except him losing credibility.

Fern

Oh, you mean the red line that Syria didn't cross? That one?

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-and-the-red-line-on-syrias-chemical-weapons/

Or demonstrate that the Syrian regime used a whole bunch of chemical weapons to lay claim to a valid assertion. Not likely.

 

[bozack]

Hogwash. He's dealing with bitter & jealous power freaks, the most obstructionist Congress in History.

They're eager to finish what they started w/ trickle down decades ago, impoverishing the middle class, & on engaging in perpetual war. Dirty bastard got in the way.

Jhhnn, its safe to say we will never see eye to eye so its best to leave it at that...your reference to those on the right I could easily apply to those on the left.

Just as they are hoping to move forward with their agenda, the liberals are also with theirs, the only reason you are behind one is because you agree with their positions.

Thanks for perusing my post(s) and commenting on it. You have some very thought provoking ideas that are well worth thinking about.

Please accept my apology for disturbing your patience and inciting your intolerance for an opinion that I believe is worth repeating as needed. I will take your words to heart and keep in mind that I shouldn't apply the principles of influencing people's opinions the way that Karl Rove is most noted for.

As for the bolded, I've always been of the belief that it takes two to tango. When Mitch McConnell clearly stated unequivocally with the determination and resoluteness of a man almost possessed that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president", I really couldn't see things any other way than that he wanted his fellow Repubs to do anything and everything to prevent Obama from being an effective and productive chief executive.

McConnell's following comments inferred that for Obama to get anything done he would, for all practical purposes, have to become a rubber stamp of approval for McConnell's and Boehner's legislative agendas.

Being a mediator infers that there is room to mediate with. McConnell and Boehner both let Obama know that there was no wiggle room involved. It was either give them everything they wanted or no deal.

And even with this laid at his feet two years into his term, IMO, Obama did manage to get some things from the Repubs. But it took Obama to cave time and time again and accede to the Repub's demands that systematically required Obama to give a lot to get a smidgin in return.

Yet, the Repubs weren't happy at all with this most favorable rate of return on their obstructive and damaging war with Obama.

They literally wanted to humiliate him at every turn. They wanted to and mostly succeeded at blocking most everything that was within their power.

But judging from the incessant demeaning rhetoric that followed Obama's every move, that was clearly not good enough, especially after Obama won his second term.

Things really ratcheted up after that monumental failure on the Repub's part. I'm sure you've personally witnessed this yourself, haven't you?

It's common knowledge that there was no mediating to be had with the Repubs declaring war on Obama and his legacy.

I can't understand how that's not clear to you. If you would, please explain why that isn't so.

edit - to the OP, my apologies for getting off topic. Bozak, for that reason, please PM me with your reply. I'd like to hear what you have to say.

No intolerance here, I read most of the hyper liberal drivel on this site so I have a pretty high threshold for beating of the horse...

As for the rest of your post, again I assert that it is responsibility of the president to be the great unifier once elected into office...something this president has not been successful as.

You can blather on about how the right was out of the gate unreasonable and worked double time to undermine his authority, but that can be said of any opposing party, the difference was that at least they were open about it, and the media was all to happy to feed into this.

Regardless as it is of no consequence at this point.

As for the OP the Iran deal is a mess, pass it, don't pass it, seems like either way this will be a disaster, just another in a line of policies that no one can agree on and make us seem weaker as a nation.

 

[MongGrel]

Hogwash. He's dealing with bitter & jealous power freaks, the most obstructionist Congress in History.

They're eager to finish what they started w/ trickle down decades ago, impoverishing the middle class, & on engaging in perpetual war. Dirty bastard got in the way.

:thumbsup:

 

[Jhhnn]

Jhhnn, its safe to say we will never see eye to eye so its best to leave it at that...your reference to those on the right I could easily apply to those on the left.

Just as they are hoping to move forward with their agenda, the liberals are also with theirs, the only reason you are behind one is because you agree with their positions.

I disagree with the proposition that breaking the govt is somehow good no matter who's doing it. That's what obstructionism accomplishes. It prevents proper operation.

We can change that operation, no doubt, but forcing failure is illegitimate except for purely partisan purposes.

We've seen the results of Repub ideology made policy during the Bush years & before. We suffer the consequences of multiple failures in foreign & domestic policy but the ideology remains the same. When you only have failure to offer, the only path to success is to hobble the opposition & tear down the govt of the people. Drag them down to your level.

If you can explain the civic minded patriotic intent behind that, I'm all ears.

 

[Vic]

They're trying to push oil prices back up. The entire energy and minerals sector of the economy has been taking a beating over the past year due to low commodities prices. Oil is trading down at $44 and gas is poised to drop below $2 by October due to overproduction and weakening global demand, and now Iran's oil reserves are going to hit the market.
The oil companies are staring at a disaster.

 

[Jhhnn]

They're trying to push oil prices back up. The entire energy and minerals sector of the economy has been taking a beating over the past year due to low commodities prices. Oil is trading down at $44 and gas is poised to drop below $2 by October due to overproduction and weakening global demand, and now Iran's oil reserves are going to hit the market.
The oil companies are staring at a disaster.

What they'd really like is a nice war that shuts off the Persian gulf to shipping.

Even the Venezuelans would get well over that.

 

[cabri]

What they'd really like is a nice war that shuts off the Persian gulf to shipping.

Even the Venezuelans would get well over that.

And the liberals have the gall to pointer fingers at others calling them war mongers.

I see liberals doing the claiming, trying to tar the concervatives.

I do not see any concervatives here, advocating what the hard core liberals are claiming.

Are the liberals trying to force an issue, they want a conflict so they can say I told you so ?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What they'd really like is a nice war that shuts off the Persian gulf to shipping.

Who's saying this? Or is this just your imagination run amok?

 

[cabri]

Who's saying this? Or is this just your imagination run amok?

I am sure that if he desires, he can find some statement, twist the context and/or paraphrase to support his contention :thumbsdown;

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I am sure that if he desires, he can find some statement, twist the context and/or paraphrase to support his contention :thumbsdown;

Yet, he apparently has no problem accusing me of having "deliberate blind spots & embrasure of obvious distortions of propaganda".

He's a trip.

 

[senseamp]

War and another multi-trillion dollar wealth transfer to the military industrial complex.

 

[cabri]

Yet you refuse to address my example. Why
Invalid, or because it is a valid example of obvious flounting by Iran and tact complicity by Russia.

I have not heard Kerry or Obama say anything?

This agreement overrides previous sanctions. As far as the ROTW is concerned, it's over, finito. They'll catch up with the formalities down the road.

As a champion of Israel, you obviously know all about flounting UN resolutions.

WRONG
Link

Washington (AFP) - The United States said it would raise the issue of a recent Moscow visit by a senior Iranian general at the United Nations, saying it violated UN resolutions on Iran.

General Qassem Suleimani's visit to Russia, reportedly in late July, had not received much attention until it was mentioned in Iranian media and on America's Fox News channel in the context of the war in Syria.

US State Department deputy spokesman Mark Toner confirmed the trip Wednesday.

"So we’ve raised this travel with senior Russian foreign ministry officials, and we’re going to raise it and address it further in New York," Toner said


Despite the recent deal struck by Iran and world powers on its nuclear programme the sanctions against Suleimani remain in effect, Toner noted, adding the US would work to ensure "that there’s a full, thorough, adequate investigation (of the visit) as well as sufficient follow-up".

• Sanctions apparently still exists. they were not removed
• Until it was forced out in the open, the US (Kerry/Obama) were not going to say anything.
• Prefect opportunity to see how the UN/Us and others will handle the deliberate disregard of sanctions.

Another red line in the sand?

Great opportunity for Congress to "understand" the agreement.

What is needed to investigate.
He was where he was not allowed to be and not for a humanitarian reason.

Russia KNEW and IGNORED.
Iran KNEW and IGNORED

The US KNEW and IGNORED. It takes Fox to expose the complicity to the US public in order for Obama, Kerry & co to react to tge finger:\

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So what do opponents of the Iran deal hope to achieve?

I suspect that Senator Schumer is hoping to maximize Jewish votes when runs for reelection in November 2016.

 

[Moonbeam]

I suspect that Senator Schumer is hoping to maximize Jewish votes when runs for reelection in November 2016.

What suggestions do you have for a democratic system in which a lot of ethnic minorities will vote their ethnicity over the welfare of the nation as a whole, send other people's children to die in wars for their country of origin or religious affiliation, etc.?