Iran -- Deal Reached! (2 Viewers)

[jonessed]

Schumer is a big loss. Overcoming the veto is going to be a close vote.

 

[TwinTurbo]

Don't know either way.

But can you build a nuclear bomb while moving any evidence of it every three weeks?

Every nuclear expert I have heard in the last few weeks says no. Several Republican politicians I have heard in the last few weeks say yes. So you'll have to decide who you find to be more compelling.

They don't have to actually move anything around. They can simply just block access, manipulate, delay, and hide. It's a classic shell game and the agreement makes it all possible.

 

[timschochet]

Shades of Woodrow Wlison again for Barack Obama, comparing the Republican Party to those chanting "Death to America!" In Iran.

I am for this deal, and of late I've been very complimentary to Obama, but this latest rhetoric shows his biggest weakness as President IMO: like Wilson he has utter contempt for those who disagree with him. If this deal fails (and now, with Schumer's defection, it may be close) Obama's hubris will be partly to blame.

 

[Hang 10]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

That's the no. 2 Senate Democrat folks, the heir to Harry Reid. That's in addition to Steve Israel a couple days ago.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/250242-highest-ranking-jewish-dem-in-house-opposes-iran-deal

I guess Obama thinks Schumer must be either ignorant or a liar to oppose this deal.

 

[3C's]

Response to an inquiry to one of my Senators:

Dear 3C's:

Thank you for contacting me about Iran's nuclear program. I appreciate hearing from you.

On July 14th, after years of tough diplomatic negotiations, the P5+1 (the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, plus Germany) and Iran reached agreement on a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran's nuclear program. In exchange for relief from nuclear-related sanctions, Iran agreed to significant constraints and inspections meant to ensure, in a verifiable manner, that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes. Under the JCPOA, Iran agreed to: cut the number of installed centrifuges by two-thirds for ten years; cut its stockpile of enriched uranium by 97 percent and cap uranium enrichment to less than 3.67 percent for fifteen years; dismantle its heavy water reactor so that it can no longer produce weapons grade plutonium; submit to an intrusive inspections regime by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); and undergo other restrictions. Before conclusion of the JCPOA discussions, the P5+1 negotiated an interim nuclear agreement under which Iran froze and reversed key components of its nuclear program in exchange for temporary sanctions relief. Assessments by the State Department and the IAEA concluded that Iran took verifiable actions to roll back its nuclear program and increase transparency on its nuclear activities.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, I have followed the nuclear agreement negotiations very closely. I have participated in numerous congressional hearings and classified briefings on the subject, traveled five times to the Middle East-including two trips to Israel-and listened to national security and foreign policy experts, military leaders, servicemembers, and my constituents. Earlier this year, I coauthored the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, legislation that provides Congress the 60-day review period it is engaged in now to either approve or disapprove of any lifting of congressional sanctions as part of the JCPOA. A major reason that I co-authored this legislation, even over the initial objections of many in my party and the Administration, was to provide Congress a clear and constructive way to review the final nuclear deal.

After much thought and careful deliberation, as well as acknowledgment that every option involves risk, I have concluded that the JCPOA is a dramatic improvement over the status quo in improving global security. While the JCPOA is not perfect, the agreement achieves critical objectives: it blocks Iran from any pathway towards a nuclear weapon for at least 15 years; imposes enhanced scrutiny of Iran's nuclear program in perpetuity through international inspections; and allows for the automatic re-imposition of nuclear sanctions should Iran try to cheat or violate the agreement. Further, the United States reserves the right to sanction Iran for non-nuclear activities, including destabilizing support for terrorist and proxy groups in the region and human rights violations. Should Iran violate the terms of the JCPOA and seek a nuclear weapon, the United States and international partners maintain the ability to use military action. The knowledge of the Iranian program gained through extensive inspections will improve the effectiveness of any such action and will make it easier to gain international support for military action should Iran violate its pledge to never pursue nuclear weapons.

This deal does not solve all outstanding issues with an adversarial regime, including its support for terrorism, and we must increase efforts with our international regional allies to counter those malign activities. But, at the end of the day, the agreement is not about making an ally out of an adversary. It is about denying an adversary a path to obtaining nuclear weapons. This deal takes a nuclear weapons program that was marching ahead, even under crippling sanctions, and disables it for many years through peaceful diplomatic means with sufficient tools for the international community to verify whether Iran is meeting its commitments.

Monitoring this nuclear agreement and countering Iran's non-nuclear activity will require great diligence from the United States, our allies, and the IAEA. This work will be arduous, but it is far preferable to allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon and is far preferable to any other alternative, including war. Moving forward, I will continue to monitor Iran's nuclear and non-nuclear activities and support efforts that advance our national interests.

Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,

Tim Kaine

 

[ffldrew]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

Do you think it's the actual deal he is against or is it his constituents that are causing him to question it?

 

[timschochet]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

Do you think it's the actual deal he is against or is it his constituents that are causing him to question it?

This is a good question. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Jewish Americans are knotting themselves into a tight ball here of support for the Israeli government, which means not supporting this deal. There is a "You're either with Israel or against it" feel to this opposition which is as strong as I've ever sensed. IMO, logic and reason within the Jewish community are being thrown to the wayside in favor of pure emotion (similar, in a fashion, to the American Cuban reaction to proposed relations with Cuba's current government.)

 

[Hang 10]

If he liked the deal couldn't he say he agrees with Obama that whether Israel sees it or not, this deal is better for them than no deal? Maybe he just thinks the deal sucks.

 

[cstu]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

Do you think it's the actual deal he is against or is it his constituents that are causing him to question it?

This is a good question. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Jewish Americans are knotting themselves into a tight ball here of support for the Israeli government, which means not supporting this deal. There is a "You're either with Israel or against it" feel to this opposition which is as strong as I've ever sensed. IMO, logic and reason within the Jewish community are being thrown to the wayside in favor of pure emotion (similar, in a fashion, to the American Cuban reaction to proposed relations with Cuba's current government.)

Seems like they'd rather have the world plunged into WW3 than accept the possibility that Iran might have 1 nuke to their hundreds at some point in the future.

 

[timschochet]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

Do you think it's the actual deal he is against or is it his constituents that are causing him to question it?

This is a good question. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Jewish Americans are knotting themselves into a tight ball here of support for the Israeli government, which means not supporting this deal. There is a "You're either with Israel or against it" feel to this opposition which is as strong as I've ever sensed. IMO, logic and reason within the Jewish community are being thrown to the wayside in favor of pure emotion (similar, in a fashion, to the American Cuban reaction to proposed relations with Cuba's current government.)

Seems like they'd rather have the world plunged into WW3 than accept the possibility that Iran might have 1 nuke to their hundreds at some point in the future.

I don't think they believe that.

 

[Hang 10]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

Do you think it's the actual deal he is against or is it his constituents that are causing him to question it?

This is a good question. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Jewish Americans are knotting themselves into a tight ball here of support for the Israeli government, which means not supporting this deal. There is a "You're either with Israel or against it" feel to this opposition which is as strong as I've ever sensed. IMO, logic and reason within the Jewish community are being thrown to the wayside in favor of pure emotion (similar, in a fashion, to the American Cuban reaction to proposed relations with Cuba's current government.)

Seems like they'd rather have the world plunged into WW3 than accept the possibility that Iran might have 1 nuke to their hundreds at some point in the future.

I'm sure mutual destruction is a very comforting thought for them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

That's the no. 2 Senate Democrat folks, the heir to Harry Reid. That's in addition to Steve Israel a couple days ago.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/250242-highest-ranking-jewish-dem-in-house-opposes-iran-deal

I guess Obama thinks Schumer must be either ignorant or a liar to oppose this deal.

Right, Schumer is aligned with Iranian hard liners. Give me a fkg break.

 

[timschochet]

But cstu, your comment leads to the major question that I have for those opposed: what is the alternative to this deal?

In both debates last night, this question was asked. It mostly went unanswered, with one exception: Carly Fiorina asserted that she would negotiate a new deal in which Iran agreed to allow inspections "anytime anywhere". Nobody took her to task for the complete unreality of this answer- (and in fact, it was the forcefulness of this response that contributed to the notion that Fiorina was the clear winner of that debate.) And Fiorina's answer represents a refusal by the Republican party, and in fact many Americans, to acknowledge the truth that the United States is no longer able to dominate world affairs in the way we have. We can't control Iran. We can't control the other nations who want to trade with Iran. We still have influence, and we're trying to use it, but this "our way or the highway stuff" no longer works, if it ever did.

For all of his hubris, Obama recognizes this fact- and he is perhaps the first President to do so.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

Do you think it's the actual deal he is against or is it his constituents that are causing him to question it?

This is a good question. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Jewish Americans are knotting themselves into a tight ball here of support for the Israeli government, which means not supporting this deal. There is a "You're either with Israel or against it" feel to this opposition which is as strong as I've ever sensed. IMO, logic and reason within the Jewish community are being thrown to the wayside in favor of pure emotion (similar, in a fashion, to the American Cuban reaction to proposed relations with Cuba's current government.)

Seems like they'd rather have the world plunged into WW3 than accept the possibility that Iran might have 1 nuke to their hundreds at some point in the future.

I would be so much happier if Obama was as honest as you about the actual policy and admit that that this - nuclear containment, not prevention and nonproliferation, which mind you is something that Iran and US are already bound by an actual treaty on - is the actual policy.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But cstu, your comment leads to the major question that I have for those opposed: what is the alternative to this deal?

In both debates last night, this question was asked. It mostly went unanswered, with one exception: Carly Fiorina asserted that she would negotiate a new deal in which Iran agreed to allow inspections "anytime anywhere". Nobody took her to task for the complete unreality of this answer- (and in fact, it was the forcefulness of this response that contributed to the notion that Fiorina was the clear winner of that debate.) And Fiorina's answer represents a refusal by the Republican party, and in fact many Americans, to acknowledge the truth that the United States is no longer able to dominate world affairs in the way we have. We can't control Iran. We can't control the other nations who want to trade with Iran. We still have influence, and we're trying to use it, but this "our way or the highway stuff" no longer works, if it ever did.

For all of his hubris, Obama recognizes this fact- and he is perhaps the first President to do so.

Tim you also have to recognize and admit that Obama has put us into this Hobson's Choice.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's another question Tim, if this is so important, why has Obama only bound us by agreement. It's not a treaty. If we don't like it, if they don't like, forget it, never mind, this is the equivalent of an international handshake.

 

[ffldrew]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

Do you think it's the actual deal he is against or is it his constituents that are causing him to question it?

This is a good question. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Jewish Americans are knotting themselves into a tight ball here of support for the Israeli government, which means not supporting this deal. There is a "You're either with Israel or against it" feel to this opposition which is as strong as I've ever sensed. IMO, logic and reason within the Jewish community are being thrown to the wayside in favor of pure emotion (similar, in a fashion, to the American Cuban reaction to proposed relations with Cuba's current government.)

Seems like they'd rather have the world plunged into WW3 than accept the possibility that Iran might have 1 nuke to their hundreds at some point in the future.

I'm sure mutual destruction is a very comforting thought for them.

Well without the bogeyman of nuclear Iran - the spotlight turns to Israel, the settlements , the West Bank and Gaza. And any push to "settle" these issues results in a loss according to Likud Israel and perhaps we could include several other Israeli constituencies in that bucket.

 

[timschochet]

Here's another question Tim, if this is so important, why has Obama only bound us by agreement. It's not a treaty. If we don't like it, if they don't like, forget it, never mind, this is the equivalent of an international handshake.

I think you already know the answer: American politics. He can't get a treaty passed through Congress.

 

[timschochet]

But cstu, your comment leads to the major question that I have for those opposed: what is the alternative to this deal?

In both debates last night, this question was asked. It mostly went unanswered, with one exception: Carly Fiorina asserted that she would negotiate a new deal in which Iran agreed to allow inspections "anytime anywhere". Nobody took her to task for the complete unreality of this answer- (and in fact, it was the forcefulness of this response that contributed to the notion that Fiorina was the clear winner of that debate.) And Fiorina's answer represents a refusal by the Republican party, and in fact many Americans, to acknowledge the truth that the United States is no longer able to dominate world affairs in the way we have. We can't control Iran. We can't control the other nations who want to trade with Iran. We still have influence, and we're trying to use it, but this "our way or the highway stuff" no longer works, if it ever did.

For all of his hubris, Obama recognizes this fact- and he is perhaps the first President to do so.

Tim you also have to recognize and admit that Obama has put us into this Hobson's Choice.

You can say that, but what options did Obama have?

The Bush Administration and then the Obama Administration worked for years to get a coalition of countries, including China and Russia, to cutoff Iran from all trade, with the stated purpose of forcing Iran to the table to negotiate nuclear weapons. That finally happened. Our negotiators got the best deal we could. Obama could either sign off on it or walk away from it. If he walked away from it, then China and Russia would start trading with Iran anyhow.

So it seems to me that Obama was also faced with a Hobson's Choice. But then again, this was our purpose all along, wasn't it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's another question Tim, if this is so important, why has Obama only bound us by agreement. It's not a treaty. If we don't like it, if they don't like, forget it, never mind, this is the equivalent of an international handshake.

I think you already know the answer: American politics. He can't get a treaty passed through Congress.

Which is just as much his fault as everybody else. But the guy who ran on hope and change went full on cynical a long time ago. So what we're getting is a totally enforceable and non-binding promise of sorts which is totally dependent on the next president in terms of how much we stick to it or how. Same is true of Iran btw, where this or the next Ayatollah could be on boatrd or not, who knows.

And with Schumer that's is now the second key backer of Hillary (after Haim Saban) to go against this thing, and Hillary's pronouncements on it have been as guarded about it as possible without being an actual Republican. She has already established the rule that the US can and should go to war to enforce inspections.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But cstu, your comment leads to the major question that I have for those opposed: what is the alternative to this deal?

In both debates last night, this question was asked. It mostly went unanswered, with one exception: Carly Fiorina asserted that she would negotiate a new deal in which Iran agreed to allow inspections "anytime anywhere". Nobody took her to task for the complete unreality of this answer- (and in fact, it was the forcefulness of this response that contributed to the notion that Fiorina was the clear winner of that debate.) And Fiorina's answer represents a refusal by the Republican party, and in fact many Americans, to acknowledge the truth that the United States is no longer able to dominate world affairs in the way we have. We can't control Iran. We can't control the other nations who want to trade with Iran. We still have influence, and we're trying to use it, but this "our way or the highway stuff" no longer works, if it ever did.

For all of his hubris, Obama recognizes this fact- and he is perhaps the first President to do so.

Tim you also have to recognize and admit that Obama has put us into this Hobson's Choice.

You can say that, but what options did Obama have?

The Bush Administration and then the Obama Administration worked for years to get a coalition of countries, including China and Russia, to cutoff Iran from all trade, with the stated purpose of forcing Iran to the table to negotiate nuclear weapons. That finally happened. Our negotiators got the best deal we could. Obama could either sign off on it or walk away from it. If he walked away from it, then China and Russia would start trading with Iran anyhow.

So it seems to me that Obama was also faced with a Hobson's Choice. But then again, this was our purpose all along, wasn't it?

Of course not, he ran against the opposite. But it took until 2014 to get a deal done. In 2009-10 - the date of the OP of this thread - the US was in a much stronger bargaining position. This has been said I know, but Obama has helped put us here. I probably sound like you with the ACA in supporting this thing but the situation is one partly of Obama's making.

 

[shady inc]

i'm in favor of whatever gets my oil stock price to go back up

 

[cstu]

This deal must be pretty bad for Chuck Schumer to come out against it.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/06/politics/chuck-schumer-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/

Do you think it's the actual deal he is against or is it his constituents that are causing him to question it?

This is a good question. Unfortunately, I suspect it's the latter.

Jewish Americans are knotting themselves into a tight ball here of support for the Israeli government, which means not supporting this deal. There is a "You're either with Israel or against it" feel to this opposition which is as strong as I've ever sensed. IMO, logic and reason within the Jewish community are being thrown to the wayside in favor of pure emotion (similar, in a fashion, to the American Cuban reaction to proposed relations with Cuba's current government.)

Seems like they'd rather have the world plunged into WW3 than accept the possibility that Iran might have 1 nuke to their hundreds at some point in the future.

I'm sure mutual destruction is a very comforting thought for them.

We've dealt with it for 60 years, suck it up Israel.

 

[cstu]

But cstu, your comment leads to the major question that I have for those opposed: what is the alternative to this deal?

In both debates last night, this question was asked. It mostly went unanswered, with one exception: Carly Fiorina asserted that she would negotiate a new deal in which Iran agreed to allow inspections "anytime anywhere". Nobody took her to task for the complete unreality of this answer- (and in fact, it was the forcefulness of this response that contributed to the notion that Fiorina was the clear winner of that debate.) And Fiorina's answer represents a refusal by the Republican party, and in fact many Americans, to acknowledge the truth that the United States is no longer able to dominate world affairs in the way we have. We can't control Iran. We can't control the other nations who want to trade with Iran. We still have influence, and we're trying to use it, but this "our way or the highway stuff" no longer works, if it ever did.

For all of his hubris, Obama recognizes this fact- and he is perhaps the first President to do so.

That's all I've been saying. No way do I want us to go to war with Iran over nukes - if it's so important to Israel then by all means they can get into a huge war with Iran themselves.

This deal shows that Iran is willing to work with the international community and it's progress, even if it doesn't prevent Iran from getting nukes in the long-term.

 

[jon_mx]

Here's another question Tim, if this is so important, why has Obama only bound us by agreement. It's not a treaty. If we don't like it, if they don't like, forget it, never mind, this is the equivalent of an international handshake.

I think you already know the answer: American politics. He can't get a treaty passed through Congress.

It does not sound like the remarkable achievement that you thought it was when you bumped him up about a dozen plus spots in your ranking.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But cstu, your comment leads to the major question that I have for those opposed: what is the alternative to this deal?

In both debates last night, this question was asked. It mostly went unanswered, with one exception: Carly Fiorina asserted that she would negotiate a new deal in which Iran agreed to allow inspections "anytime anywhere". Nobody took her to task for the complete unreality of this answer- (and in fact, it was the forcefulness of this response that contributed to the notion that Fiorina was the clear winner of that debate.) And Fiorina's answer represents a refusal by the Republican party, and in fact many Americans, to acknowledge the truth that the United States is no longer able to dominate world affairs in the way we have. We can't control Iran. We can't control the other nations who want to trade with Iran. We still have influence, and we're trying to use it, but this "our way or the highway stuff" no longer works, if it ever did.

For all of his hubris, Obama recognizes this fact- and he is perhaps the first President to do so.

That's all I've been saying. No way do I want us to go to war with Iran over nukes - if it's so important to Israel then by all means they can get into a huge war with Iran themselves.

This deal shows that Iran is willing to work with the international community and it's progress, even if it doesn't prevent Iran from getting nukes in the long-term.

In 2008 Obama said that he would defend Israel if attacked.

If so then Israel going to war means us going to war.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

OBAMA: As I said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel, is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we -- one whose security, we consider paramount. And that would be an act of aggression that we would -- that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable. And the United States would take appropriate action.

 

[cstu]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

 

[cstu]

In 2008 Obama said that he would defend Israel if attacked.

If so then Israel going to war means us going to war.

If Israel is attacked, he said nothing about joining a war that Israel starts.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

In 2008 Obama said that he would defend Israel if attacked.

If so then Israel going to war means us going to war.

If Israel is attacked, he said nothing about joining a war that Israel starts.

Oh, ok.

 

[cstu]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

There's also a stretch of desert between talking about getting rid of Israel and actually doing something about it. What's going on there is nothing different than right wing politicians acting tough to appease their base.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

There's also a stretch of desert between talking about getting rid of Israel and actually doing something about it. What's going on there is nothing different than right wing politicians acting tough to appease their base.

Yeah they're actually fascistic theocrats which means they didn't stop at "right wing" they just kept going. The people who held that contest actually run the country, that was a state sponsored event.

ETA - we are talking about an explicitly antisemitic regime which has always been that way since the beginning and is still that way as a matter of policy.

 

[nittanylion]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

There's also a stretch of desert between talking about getting rid of Israel and actually doing something about it. What's going on there is nothing different than right wing politicians acting tough to appease their base.

 

[Hang 10]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

There's also a stretch of desert between talking about getting rid of Israel and actually doing something about it. What's going on there is nothing different than right wing politicians acting tough to appease their base.

Doing something about it like say, gaining the means to do so? Like maybe building a nuclear weapon?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

There's also a stretch of desert between talking about getting rid of Israel and actually doing something about it. What's going on there is nothing different than right wing politicians acting tough to appease their base.

Doing something about it like say, gaining the means to do so? Like maybe building a nuclear weapon?

Oh and developing ICBM technology.

 

[Hang 10]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

There's also a stretch of desert between talking about getting rid of Israel and actually doing something about it. What's going on there is nothing different than right wing politicians acting tough to appease their base.

Doing something about it like say, gaining the means to do so? Like maybe building a nuclear weapon?

Oh and developing ICBM technology.

Or sponsoring terrorism.

 

[Hang 10]

So if the administrations position is that it's either this deal or war, what happens if congress rejects the deal? Does Obama make the case for war? That's the only alternative, right?

 

[cstu]

Or sponsoring terrorism.

Giving money to Hamas is their ticky-tack way of being a leader in the Middle East. Yes, it's twisted but it works for them (at least they believe it does). They pretend to care about Palestinians yet they know perfectly well that Israel isn't going to be destroyed by some lousy rocket attacks.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So if the administrations position is that it's either this deal or war, what happens if congress rejects the deal? Does Obama make the case for war? That's the only alternative, right?

I don't exactly understand what Obama is doing with that rhetoric. I get what he's doing now, he's intending it for now-now (it's almost impossible for this deal to fail in Congress with this reverse veto setup). But he establishes precedent for the next president who will either be a Republican or more likely Hillary. Hillary established in the Iraq War vote that yes she does believe that military force to enforce inspection regimes is legitimate, necessary, and proper and especially when there are WMD at stake. That's her policy. And look at her language now, she's just about one step left from the GOP position and that's it, with Schumer and now her no. 1 donor, Haim Saban, rejecting the deal. And in 2002 she explicitly looked back to Bill Clinton's administration for support war, and here is Obama saying it's This OR War.

I agree in this rubric, given the delays in the last 5+ years, maybe longer under Bush, this is indeed what we are stuck with. And so considering this is not a treaty, and considering that Iran has already broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a treaty they were already bound by, this leaves us in a really sticky rhetorical and military spot. Obama has really teed up for the next administration, whoever it is, to be in a really tight jam if it comes out that Iran is violating the deal. And how do we blame Iran for violating something which is essentially a handshake deal? Where is the international law in this?

 

[cstu]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

There's also a stretch of desert between talking about getting rid of Israel and actually doing something about it. What's going on there is nothing different than right wing politicians acting tough to appease their base.

Doing something about it like say, gaining the means to do so? Like maybe building a nuclear weapon?

They aren't going to commit suicide once they get a nuke. Not only does Israel have 75-400 nukes but there are a lot of Muslims living there as well.

 

[Hang 10]

By the way, Pakistan doesn't officially recognize Israel and has nukes - somehow Israel is still here.

Cmon man, there's a stretch of desert between ignoring someone and saying they should be gone entirely.

I mean I can see a lot of your points, ok the threat to Israel is overstated, perhaps, but do we have to pretend that Iran is just another ho-hum nation without any particularly strong feelings about Israel or Jews?

There's also a stretch of desert between talking about getting rid of Israel and actually doing something about it. What's going on there is nothing different than right wing politicians acting tough to appease their base.

Doing something about it like say, gaining the means to do so? Like maybe building a nuclear weapon?

They aren't going to commit suicide once they get a nuke. Not only does Israel have 75-400 nukes but there are a lot of Muslims living there as well.

Yeah, if there's one thing we know about radical Muslims is that they would never do anything suicidal or intentionally hurt other Muslims. Great point.

 

[Hang 10]

So if the administrations position is that it's either this deal or war, what happens if congress rejects the deal? Does Obama make the case for war? That's the only alternative, right?

I don't exactly understand what Obama is doing with that rhetoric. I get what he's doing now, he's intending it for now-now (it's almost impossible for this deal to fail in Congress with this reverse veto setup). But he establishes precedent for the next president who will either be a Republican or more likely Hillary. Hillary established in the Iraq War vote that yes she does believe that military force to enforce inspection regimes is legitimate, necessary, and proper and especially when there are WMD at stake. That's her policy. And look at her language now, she's just about one step left from the GOP position and that's it, with Schumer and now her no. 1 donor, Haim Saban, rejecting the deal. And in 2002 she explicitly looked back to Bill Clinton's administration for support war, and here is Obama saying it's This OR War.

I agree in this rubric, given the delays in the last 5+ years, maybe longer under Bush, this is indeed what we are stuck with. And so considering this is not a treaty, and considering that Iran has already broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a treaty they were already bound by, this leaves us in a really sticky rhetorical and military spot. Obama has really teed up for the next administration, whoever it is, to be in a really tight jam if it comes out that Iran is violating the deal. And how do we blame Iran for violating something which is essentially a handshake deal? Where is the international law in this?

Yeah, he seems to be painting us in a corner if his bluff gets called. But I guess this wouldn't be the first time he drew a line in the sand and then did nothing.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The point about Israel having nukes and MAD is a problem in a couple respects.

- One is that Israel is the size of Delaware (if I exaggerate it can't be by much). If Iran wanted to hit Israel and take them out in 5 seconds it can do that, imagine if we had all our defense capabilities in Delaware, they would be gone in like 5 seconds and we would have no strike-back capability.

2. Jerusalem is there, that's the holiest of sites that muslims want back, so what good is it to them wiped out? Who knows, these are nutjobs, maybe they would wipe it out anyway because they hate Jews and Israel more than they love Jerusalem, but there are all kinds of nukes and Tel Aviv could be targeted or the Golan Heights with minimal strikes and it would be done without sacrificing Jerusalem.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So if the administrations position is that it's either this deal or war, what happens if congress rejects the deal? Does Obama make the case for war? That's the only alternative, right?

I don't exactly understand what Obama is doing with that rhetoric. I get what he's doing now, he's intending it for now-now (it's almost impossible for this deal to fail in Congress with this reverse veto setup). But he establishes precedent for the next president who will either be a Republican or more likely Hillary. Hillary established in the Iraq War vote that yes she does believe that military force to enforce inspection regimes is legitimate, necessary, and proper and especially when there are WMD at stake. That's her policy. And look at her language now, she's just about one step left from the GOP position and that's it, with Schumer and now her no. 1 donor, Haim Saban, rejecting the deal. And in 2002 she explicitly looked back to Bill Clinton's administration for support war, and here is Obama saying it's This OR War.

I agree in this rubric, given the delays in the last 5+ years, maybe longer under Bush, this is indeed what we are stuck with. And so considering this is not a treaty, and considering that Iran has already broken the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which is a treaty they were already bound by, this leaves us in a really sticky rhetorical and military spot. Obama has really teed up for the next administration, whoever it is, to be in a really tight jam if it comes out that Iran is violating the deal. And how do we blame Iran for violating something which is essentially a handshake deal? Where is the international law in this?

Yeah, he seems to be painting us in a corner if his bluff gets called. But I guess this wouldn't be the first time he drew a line in the sand and then did nothing.

People forget that Obama has asked for as many AUMF's as Bush, maybe one more (can't recall, was there one for Libya? Were there 2 in Syria?). He never even bothered to push any of them to a vote. Meanwhile he just struck without permission. How crazy is that.

 

[TwinTurbo]

But cstu, your comment leads to the major question that I have for those opposed: what is the alternative to this deal?

In both debates last night, this question was asked. It mostly went unanswered, with one exception: Carly Fiorina asserted that she would negotiate a new deal in which Iran agreed to allow inspections "anytime anywhere". Nobody took her to task for the complete unreality of this answer- (and in fact, it was the forcefulness of this response that contributed to the notion that Fiorina was the clear winner of that debate.) And Fiorina's answer represents a refusal by the Republican party, and in fact many Americans, to acknowledge the truth that the United States is no longer able to dominate world affairs in the way we have. We can't control Iran. We can't control the other nations who want to trade with Iran. We still have influence, and we're trying to use it, but this "our way or the highway stuff" no longer works, if it ever did.

For all of his hubris, Obama recognizes this fact- and he is perhaps the first President to do so.

Tim, as much as I don't want to agree with Carly, you can always negotiate a better deal. I'm sorry but John Kerry got his ### handed to him in these negotiations. The only alternative does not have to be war, although my take is that military action will probably prove to be the only option that would effectively stop this regime from building nuclear weapons. Once the world caved on sanctions, there essentially remains no other effective enforcement mechanism except military force to ensure Iran does not cheat. The threat of snap back sanctions is a fallacy. And we won't ever get access to inspect undeclared, hidden, covert sites. But just because a tough, complicated challenge lies ahead, that doesn't mean you cave and pretend it was the only viable option.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's IBT but WSJ is also reporting - Iran is supposedly denying pre-condition inspections at this moment:

Iran Accused Of 'Sanitizing' Suspected Nuclear Site At Parchin Ahead Of UN InspectionThe Iranian government on Thursday rejected reports that it is attempting to “sanitize” the controversial Parchin military complex -- located near the capital city of Tehran -- ahead of a planned United Nations inspection. Reacting to an earlier report by U.S. think tank Institute for Science and International Security, Iran’s U.N. mission termed the allegations “preposterous” and “baseless.”

...The Washington-based institute had, in a report released Wednesday, analyzed satellite images reportedly taken on July 12, 19 and 26 -- days after Iran and six major world powers finalized a nuclear deal after protracted negotiations in Vienna.

International inspectors have been denied access to the Parchin complex since 2005. Under the recently-signed nuclear deal, however, Iran has until Oct. 15 to grant access to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and answer outstanding questions about nuclear activities carried out at the location in the past.

...

http://www.ibtimes.com/iran-accused-sanitizing-suspected-nuclear-site-parchin-ahead-un-inspection-2043385

No Military Site Inspections? A key adviser to Iran’s leader says U.N. access is ‘absolutely forbidden.’...Ali Akar Velayati, a top adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who appeared on Al-Jazeera on July 31 and was asked about U.N. inspections of Iran’s military sites. Here’s how he replied, according to the Memri translation service:

“Regardless of how the P5+1 countries interpret the nuclear agreement, their entry into our military sites is absolutely forbidden. The entry of any foreigner, including IAEA inspectors or any other inspector, to the sensitive military sites of the Islamic Republic is forbidden, no matter what.”

Interviewer: “That’s final?”

Mr. Velayati: “Yes, final.” ...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/no-military-site-inspections-1438642038

 

[Widbil83]

Shades of Woodrow Wlison again for Barack Obama, comparing the Republican Party to those chanting "Death to America!" In Iran.

I am for this deal, and of late I've been very complimentary to Obama, but this latest rhetoric shows his biggest weakness as President IMO: like Wilson he has utter contempt for those who disagree with him. If this deal fails (and now, with Schumer's defection, it may be close) Obama's hubris will be partly to blame.

And of course he is doubling down on his crazy talk, like always. I can't remember the last time I heard him apologize or say he was wrong about something. The funny thing is Trump has almost copied the Obama blueprint of never apologizing and just keep attacking. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-wont-back-down-from-linking-gop-and-iranian-hard-liners_55c4f0d6e4b0d9b743dc0cba?kvcommref=mostpopular

 

[cstu]

They aren't going to commit suicide once they get a nuke. Not only does Israel have 75-400 nukes but there are a lot of Muslims living there as well.

Yeah, if there's one thing we know about radical Muslims is that they would never do anything suicidal or intentionally hurt other Muslims. Great point.

SMH.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Well allegedly the only person that Schumer informed about his decision was the President..... and yet news that Schumer did what he did leaked:

https://twitter.com/verumserum/status/629761979373109248/photo/1

Apparently the president himself outted Schumer. Nice guy.

 

[jon_mx]

Obama is and always will be a left-wing hack. Unlike Bill Clinton who developed a skill set in his years in Arkansas to deal and talk to the other side, Obama has never given a speech or statement that was even remotely appealing to the other side. Easily the worst President in my lifetime when it comes to reaching out to the other side The closet thing Obama has done to 'reach out' is telling them they can sit in the back seat.