Iran deal

[Soonerjeepman]

So, 2 issues...

#1 The White House and Iran's gov are putting out 2 DIFFERENT releases regarding the "talks" and what was agreed on...

"The bottom line is Iran has not agreed to a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement, but rather has put out a dueling framework that contradicts the one put out by the United States," Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said in a written statement.

#2 obama admits deal will allow Iran to have nuclear warhead after 13 years, basically putting the problem off (kind of like the deficit)...

President Obama admitted Tuesday in a broadcast interview that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon, which could come immediately after Year 13 of the agreement -- leaving the problem for future presidents.

Course it's by the evil fox (faux) news so probably all just bullcrap fear mongering by the pitchfork/torch carrying circle jerking lemmings...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/07/nuclear-deal-critics-worried-about-dueling-fact-sheets-from-us-iran/

[SoonerProphet]

Kirk has a vested interest in seeing this thing fail, he, along with the crook Menedez who sponsored the new sanctions legislation. Maybe it is just me but he does not sound like an objective voice on the issue.

I have heard a lot about this 13 year deal and don't really get it. Is there a link to these statements. Arak will have limited plutonium production and they don't even have a reprocessing plant to convert into weapons grade stuff. Same can be said of uranium, takes 90% enrichment for weapons grade.

So at this magical 13 year mark Iran is going to reveal an ICBM with a nuke on top?

[Serenity Now]

So, 2 issues...

#1 The White House and Iran's gov are putting out 2 DIFFERENT releases regarding the "talks" and what was agreed on...

"The bottom line is Iran has not agreed to a political framework that addresses all parameters of a comprehensive agreement, but rather has put out a dueling framework that contradicts the one put out by the United States," Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said in a written statement.

#2 obama admits deal will allow Iran to have nuclear warhead after 13 years, basically putting the problem off (kind of like the deficit)...

President Obama admitted Tuesday in a broadcast interview that his nuclear agreement with Iran only delays Tehran from eventually acquiring a weapon, which could come immediately after Year 13 of the agreement -- leaving the problem for future presidents.

Course it's by the evil fox (faux) news so probably all just bullcrap fear mongering by the pitchfork/torch carrying circle jerking lemmings...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/07/nuclear-deal-critics-worried-about-dueling-fact-sheets-from-us-iran/I rarely post anything from gawker, mediamatters, huffpost, etc. Likewise, when I see wnd, brietbart, etc. I do the old eye roll.

Once the mullahs die off the much more progressive populace will be running things. The problem is that the hawks on both sides are setting the agenda. It's like both sides of the ring have their hype men stirring up the trouble.

[rock on sooner]

Naw, all that does is give the Israelis more time to identify ALL the
turbans working on the program and where they're working...Bibi
sez go and the Mossad will solve it.....

[Serenity Now]

Good thing he's on the case. He's a great prognosticator at these things!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/netanyahu-enters-never-never-land/2015/03/05/2f279c3c-c372-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

He's been banging this war drum for 25 years. Read that article. The Bush administration scuttled negotiations in the mid 2000's when Iran had 164 centrifuges. After that they built up to 19,000. I wonder how many of them were sold by Haliburton?

[BoulderSooner79]

I rarely post anything from gawker, mediamatters, huffpost, etc. Likewise, when I see wnd, brietbart, etc. I do the old eye roll.

Once the mullahs die off the much more progressive populace will be running things. The problem is that the hawks on both sides are setting the agenda. It's like both sides of the ring have their hype men stirring up the trouble.

You pretty much nailed it. The problem is that when the old mullahs die off, there will be less-old mullahs trying to take their place. Maybe the progressives could prevent that, but a power vacuum will attract multiple parties trying to fill it.

As I said before, it would be in our best interest to have some kind of formal relationship with Iran. I don't know if this nuclear "deal" is the right path, but seems as good as any. But there is no deal here. If you cut through the rhetoric, they made up a deadline and it passed by with no deal. So, they made up a framework for a deal with a new deadline instead of calling it quits. My bet is that date will come and go with no progress too. I think the hardliners will kill this, but it will be Iran's hardliners - not ours. It is certainly in Iran's best interest to rejoin the world, but that is from the average citizen's point of view. The guys in power just want to stay in power and they know a more worldly and affluent population would be a threat to that end.

[Serenity Now]

You pretty much nailed it. The problem is that when the old mullahs die off, there will be less-old mullahs trying to take their place. Maybe the progressives could prevent that, but a power vacuum will attract multiple parties trying to fill it.

As I said before, it would be in our best interest to have some kind of formal relationship with Iran. I don't know if this nuclear "deal" is the right path, but seems as good as any. But there is no deal here. If you cut through the rhetoric, they made up a deadline and it passed by with no deal. So, they made up a framework for a deal with a new deadline instead of calling it quits. My bet is that date will come and go with no progress too. I think the hardliners will kill this, but it will be Iran's hardliners - not ours. It is certainly in Iran's best interest to rejoin the world, but that is from the average citizen's point of view. The guys in power just want to stay in power and they know a more worldly and affluent population would be a threat to that end.
What makes me giggle, sadly, is how much the hardliners from Israel, Iran and the U.S. have in common. I just don't get it.

[BoulderSooner79]

What makes me giggle, sadly, is how much the hardliners from Israel, Iran and the U.S. have in common. I just don't get it.

Think power and paranoia and there is the common thread. But under the covers, I do think the motivations are different. I've already stated what I think drives the power in Iran. I don't really believe Israel fears nuke weapons as much as they let on, but their paranoia is understandable given the geography and the Iranian rhetoric. It was a great way for Netanyahu to win an election though. I think the hardliners in Israel just want to keep Iran isolated and under sanctions for as long as possible to limit their power. There isn't a deal they would like.

The US hardliner motivation is pretty simple - make sure it a campaign issue for 2016. Even a great deal for the US strategically would be shat upon. I'm not saying this would be a great deal - I'm saying it wouldn't matter if it was.

[dwarthog]

Good thing he's on the case. He's a great prognosticator at these things!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/netanyahu-enters-never-never-land/2015/03/05/2f279c3c-c372-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

He's been banging this war drum for 25 years. Read that article. The Bush administration scuttled negotiations in the mid 2000's when Iran had 164 centrifuges. After that they built up to 19,000. I wonder how many of them were sold by Haliburton?

Do you have actual proof of Halliburton selling Iran centrifuges or are you just repeating mindless internet drivel with the hope if it's repeated enough it'll become fact?

[Serenity Now]

It's not documented on faux news but you can go to encarta and read about it.

[East Coast Bias]

I rarely post anything from gawker, mediamatters, huffpost, etc. Likewise, when I see wnd, brietbart, etc. I do the old eye roll.

Once the mullahs die off the much more progressive populace will be running things. The problem is that the hawks on both sides are setting the agenda. It's like both sides of the ring have their hype men stirring up the trouble.

I think your comment about the mullahs dying off has some parallels to the whole gay marriage/rights issue. Think about the above comment in reference to some of the generational issues....

[Turd_Ferguson]

Hmmm, the only thing I see coming up on a search is from DailyKos/Infowars/etc...all they say is "Cheney's" haliburton sells "Technology" to Iran...

[SoonerProphet]

Hmmm, the only thing I see coming up on a search is from DailyKos/Infowars/etc...all they say is "Cheney's" haliburton sells "Technology" to Iran...

Don't think they sold centrifuges. Halliburton has helped companies develop Iranian gas fields, but that is the kinda sh1t they do, they are in that business after all.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58298-2005Feb2.html

[hawaii 5-0]

I don't think anything will be signed till it's gone over with a fine toothed comb.

Continued Verification is key.

5-0

[olevetonahill]

I don't think anything will be signed till it's gone over with a fine toothed comb.

Continued Verification is key.

5-0

Agreed Obammy and his crowed aint gonna rush anything. Look how well they vetted the Bergdahl deal!

[ouwasp]

The US has owed Iran a hard punch in the nose ever since '79. But, we're not gonna do it, ever.

As for the deal? What's in it for us? How does it benefit the US? Israel doesn't like it, so why should we?

Why Israel tolerates the constant Iranian proxy attacks by Hamas and other mooslem thugs is beyond me. But one of these days they'll hand Iran the spanking they deserve.

[BoulderSooner79]

The US has owed Iran a hard punch in the nose ever since '79. But, we're not gonna do it, ever.

As for the deal? What's in it for us? How does it benefit the US? Israel doesn't like it, so why should we?

Why Israel tolerates the constant Iranian proxy attacks by Hamas and other mooslem thugs is beyond me. But one of these days they'll hand Iran the spanking they deserve.

You do realize Iran has been under severe economic sanctions orchestrated by the US ever since '79? Those have had a much more profound effect at limiting Iran's power than any military strike would have (your punch to the nose?). Perhaps you think we just vaporize them now. You also know their hostage taking was in reaction to the US supporting a brutal regime under the Shah, so it's not like it came out of no where. I'm not saying US bad, Iran good - far from it. The fact is as long as we have a policy of being adventurers in the middle east, there is the potential for backlash. I suspect the folks that made our Iran policy 50 years ago knew the risk and decided it was worth it.

Personally, I wonder if any of this is worth it and we might be better off staying arm length (heh, military arms too) from the region. But we've gone many decades and probably a dozen administrations on this course, so I don't see it changing.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

Kirk has a vested interest in seeing this thing fail, he, along with the crook Menedez who sponsored the new sanctions legislation. Maybe it is just me but he does not sound like an objective voice on the issue.

I have heard a lot about this 13 year deal and don't really get it. Is there a link to these statements. Arak will have limited plutonium production and they don't even have a reprocessing plant to convert into weapons grade stuff. Same can be said of uranium, takes 90% enrichment for weapons grade.

So at this magical 13 year mark Iran is going to reveal an ICBM with a nuke on top?

We ALL have a vested interest in seeing this abomination FAIL! No way, no how should Iran get a nuke... Obama is treasonous to allow this to happen. Valeria Jarrett all over this and her Iranian born heritage... We need to shut them down, now hard. We need to go in and destroy their capabilities. Period.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I rarely post anything from gawker, mediamatters, huffpost, etc. Likewise, when I see wnd, brietbart, etc. I do the old eye roll.

Once the mullahs die off the much more progressive populace will be running things. The problem is that the hawks on both sides are setting the agenda. It's like both sides of the ring have their hype men stirring up the trouble.

SN, what farts are you sniffing? There will not be any Aryan "progressives". The hard line is entrenched, backed up by the Republican Guards. This is a strong fundamentalist theocracy and will remain that for a long time...Up until the 13th Iman or whatever arrives...

[Serenity Now]

SN, what farts are you sniffing? There will not be any Aryan "progressives". The hard line is entrenched, backed up by the Republican Guards. This is a strong fundamentalist theocracy and will remain that for a long time...Up until the 13th Iman or whatever arrives...hey Bibi. You've been wrong for 25 years.

[SoonerProphet]

The US has owed Iran a hard punch in the nose ever since '79. But, we're not gonna do it, ever.

As for the deal? What's in it for us? How does it benefit the US? Israel doesn't like it, so why should we?

As mentioned in other posts, we are not completely innocent in our dealings with Persia.

What is in it for us, reducing centrifuges, reduction on uranium and the capacity to enrich, and a reduction of plutonium. What is in it for the hardliners but more war and mismanagement. Christ, we make foreign policy based on the wishes of another nation state, that is f*cked up. Who gives a fat sh*t what Bibi and his ilk like, they are not drivers of our security policy.

[SoonerProphet]

We ALL have a vested interest in seeing this abomination FAIL! No way, no how should Iran get a nuke... Obama is treasonous to allow this to happen. Valeria Jarrett all over this and her Iranian born heritage... We need to shut them down, now hard. We need to go in and destroy their capabilities. Period.


So I assume you'd support a tax hike to pay for the next round of adventurism in the ME. The last war the warmongers supported was so effective...and cheap.

[SoonerProphet]

How the GOP Became the Israel Party


When the unexpectedly detailed P5+1 framework agreement with Iran was announced last Thursday, Illinois Republican Mark Kirk made a bizarre comment. “We all know” said the senator, that this is going to end with “a mushroom cloud somewhere near Tehran”—a result of Israel having to go to war to “clean up the mess” made by American and European negotiators. A few days earlier John McCain had expressed the wish that Israel “go rogue” and attack Iran in order to upend the Iran negotiations.

It would have been one thing if such comments had come from backbench congressmen. But McCain is a former GOP presidential nominee, one of his party’s most prominent foreign policy spokesmen. Kirk is the co-sponsor of what was, until recently, the major Senate legislation intended to scuttle the Iran negotiations—a leader in GOP “pro-Israel” circles. Yet neither remark sparked a repudiation, or even any reaction at all. They were what one expects from the GOP these days, recklessness about war and peace fused with a passion for Israel. It was if all the diffuse sentiments which once fueled American nationalism and militarism were concentrated into a tight stream and displaced onto Israel, turning the country into the fantasy surrogate of American hawks. The conservative belief in American exceptionalism is like Zionism, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol boasted. Kirk and McCain may know that Americans have little enthusiasm for another Mideast war; the U.S. Army understands perfectly well that no occupation of Iran could be sustained, and America would have zero international support if it tried. But no matter, they have Israel.


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-the-gop-became-the-israel-party/

[Serenity Now]

So I assume you'd support a tax hike to pay for the next round of adventurism in the ME. The last war the warmongers supported was so effective...and cheap.
It's a war that our grandchildren can pay for.

[BoulderSooner79]

We ALL have a vested interest in seeing this abomination FAIL! No way, no how should Iran get a nuke... Obama is treasonous to allow this to happen. Valeria Jarrett all over this and her Iranian born heritage... We need to shut them down, now hard. We need to go in and destroy their capabilities. Period.

Er? The deal is designed to stop or at least slow down an Iran nuke. It includes INSPECTIONS which will never happen if things are status quo. But the bottom line is that the country in the most danger if Iran were to develop a nuke is IRAN. Israel has many times the technology and fire power of Iran and could turn it into a pile of smoking ashes without even going the nuke route. And given their intelligence network, there is no way Iran could develop a bomb in secret. Israel wants the current sanctions to remain in perpetuity because it keeps Iran crippled economically and thus limiting their regional influence. Shouting the nuke danger is a proven way to stir nationalism and win elections as Netanyahu just demonstrated.

[champions77]

Any negotiations with a rogue regime that continually espouses "We will annihilate the US and Israel" and "Death to America" while negotiations are being held must be viewed with an extraordinary amount of suspicion and skepticism. As a matter of fact, having such dialogue during negotiations for an important treaty is unheard of, and would be a reason to walk away in the past.

Anyone that has any degree of doubt and concern over these negotiations is perfectly understandable based on what we have seen in the past from this Administration, and the Iranians. I am sure BHO and Kerry were forced by the Mullahs to conduct these negotiations with a great deal more honesty and integrity than they have with the American people where lies, distortions and deception by the Obama Administration have been largely ignored by the Media. We now know that his landmark legislation the ACA would have had a zero chance of passing if the American people had been told the truth. Why anyone, including the Mullahs, would believe anything BHO says now without suspicion, is completely understandable.

[SoonerProphet]

Any negotiations with a rogue regime that continually espouses "We will annihilate the US and Israel" and "Death to America" while negotiations are being held must be viewed with an extraordinary amount of suspicion and skepticism.

Yet we've had presidential nominees sing beach boy tunes about bombing Iran, we have a former ambassador to the UN write an op-ed about regime change and war, and various assorted hawks openly discuss the efficacy of bombing the f*ck out of a sovereign nation. I am certain they few our hardliners with the same amount of skepticism.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Yet we've had presidential nominees sing beach boy tunes about bombing Iran, we have a former ambassador to the UN write an op-ed about regime change and war, and various assorted hawks openly discuss the efficacy of bombing the f*ck out of a sovereign nation. I am certain they few our hardliners with the same amount of skepticism.

And what, exactly, would have been their motivation for doing those things?

[SoonerProphet]

And what, exactly, would have been their motivation for doing those things?

They think that projecting an "image" of toughness is cool, they are woefully informed about the world in which they live, they think it will be cheap, easy, and Iranians will shower us with rose pedals after we blow them up. Take your pick, add more, who knows why, they need your vote.

[Turd_Ferguson]

They think that projecting an "image" of toughness is cool, they are woefully informed about the world in which they live, they think it will be cheap, easy, and Iranians will shower us with rose pedals after we blow them up. Take your pick, add more, who knows why, they need your vote.

No, I'm asking you what did Iran ever do to get such tough/cool/woefully informed/vote needing ****ers, to act like that toward Iran?

[TAFBSooner]

And what, exactly, would have been their motivation for doing those things?

A - Being insulted by 1979-80 - by both the hostage crisis and the revolution against our boy the Shah.

Q - What would have been Iran's motivation for 1979?

A - 1953, when our CIA toppled a democratic regime in Iran to install said Shah.

Q - What would have been the CIA's motivation for 1953?

A - Keeping the oil revenues streaming to British and US oil interests.

Opinion - It's properly the CIA's job to deal with threats to our national security. It's not their job to be hit men for US corporations.

[TAFBSooner]

They think that projecting an "image" of toughness is cool, they are woefully informed about the world in which they live, they think it will be cheap, easy, and Iranians will shower us with rose pedals after we blow them up. Take your pick, add more, who knows why, they need your vote.

They apparently DO think it's the job of the USG to be hit men for corporations.

I think they know perfectly well it won't be cheap, easy, or appreciated by the victims. That was the sales pitch used in 2002-03. Didn't fool me then. I hope it fools nobody this time around.

Their best weapon, however, is that now the majority of people think it doesn't matter how they vote, write letters, or debate on message boards, the warmongers gonna make war.

[SoonerProphet]

No, I'm asking you what did Iran ever do to get such tough/cool/woefully informed/vote needing ****ers, to act like that toward Iran?

Hostage crisis, marine barracks in Lebanon, some folks think Hezbollah was behind Khobar. Plenty of reasons for firebrands on both sides to talk tough.

[olevetonahill]

Yet we've had presidential nominees sing beach boy tunes about bombing Iran, we have a former ambassador to the UN write an op-ed about regime change and war, and various assorted hawks openly discuss the efficacy of bombing the f*ck out of a sovereign nation. I am certain they few our hardliners with the same amount of skepticism.


They think that projecting an "image" of toughness is cool, they are woefully informed about the world in which they live, they think it will be cheap, easy, and Iranians will shower us with rose pedals after we blow them up. Take your pick, add more, who knows why, they need your vote.

Who is this "THEY" of which you speak?
Typical Lib, you throw every one in the same generic conservative pot.

[champions77]

Yet we've had presidential nominees sing beach boy tunes about bombing Iran, we have a former ambassador to the UN write an op-ed about regime change and war, and various assorted hawks openly discuss the efficacy of bombing the f*ck out of a sovereign nation. I am certain they few our hardliners with the same amount of skepticism.

So what? Do you mean that despite the fact that this "sovereign" nation has been a major exporter of terrorism around the world. That their leaders have executed thousands of their own citizens and they have voiced their intentions to destroy the US and Israel for decades, and we are supposed to afford them some type of respect? You seem to give them an excuse for their despicable behavior.

Your naivety of Iran reminds me of this Administration. Do you think if we were real nice to them they would change their ways? Of course you do.

[SoonerProphet]

So what? Do you mean that despite the fact that this "sovereign" nation has been a major exporter of terrorism around the world. That their leaders have executed thousands of their own citizens and they have voiced their intentions to destroy the US and Israel for decades, and we are supposed to afford them some type of respect? You seem to give them an excuse for their despicable behavior.

Your naivety of Iran reminds me of this Administration. Do you think if we were real nice to them they would change their ways? Of course you do.

Our good pals the Saudis are also major exporters of terrorism yet we just sent them a bunch of weapons. They too have executed thousands, so have the Chinese, so did the Shah before the 79 revolution. The US and Israel have screamed about regime change in Iran for decades now. No excuse, just objective.

Your naïveté of how the world really works reminds of all the misleading statements made by neocons before the Iraq war. Do you think if we start another war in the ME it will get them to change their ways? Of course you do, cause it worked so well in Iraq.

[champions77]

Our good pals the Saudis are also major exporters of terrorism yet we just sent them a bunch of weapons. They too have executed thousands, so have the Chinese, so did the Shah before the 79 revolution. The US and Israel have screamed about regime change in Iran for decades now. No excuse, just objective.

Your naïveté of how the world really works reminds of all the misleading statements made by neocons before the Iraq war. Do you think if we start another war in the ME it will get them to change their ways? Of course you do, cause it worked so well in Iraq.

Saudis? They are the "nice guys" in the middle east compared to the Iranians. No comparison. Surprised at the level of "compassion" you have for these murdering cowards.

[SoonerProphet]

Saudis? They are the "nice guys" in the middle east compared to the Iranians. No comparison. Surprised at the level of "compassion" you have for these murdering cowards.

Naïveté.

[hawaii 5-0]

I'm not happy with the Israelis using us as tools to do their dirty work and Congress is lapping it up.

5-0

[BoulderSooner79]

Saudis? They are the "nice guys" in the middle east compared to the Iranians. No comparison. Surprised at the level of "compassion" you have for these murdering cowards.

Saudis are the nice guys? I guess if you just count the royal family and can count on them staying in power forever. Lots of Saudi money goes to supporting the likes of ISIS and Al Qeuda and the average Saudi citizen see us as infidels that should have our heads lopped off.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I wonder why the P5+1 didn't take place in Tehran?

[BoulderSooner79]

I wonder why the P5+1 didn't take place in Tehran?

No 5 star hotels and the food sucks.

[olevetonahill]

No 5 star hotels and the food sucks.

But they have those great tents and some fine BBQ Goat. Obammy should like that.

[champions77]

Saudis are the nice guys? I guess if you just count the royal family and can count on them staying in power forever. Lots of Saudi money goes to supporting the likes of ISIS and Al Qeuda and the average Saudi citizen see us as infidels that should have our heads lopped off.

"Compared to the Iranians". I agree that the Saudis have had their share of terrorists. I just don't think they have risen to the level of "State sponsored terrorism" that Iran has.

The fear I have and any American should have is that an Administration that does not have a good record in negotiating anything, is in charge of these negotiations. And quite frankly I do not trust them, and why should I? Based on their track record of lies, misinformation and deceit, they have done nothing to make anyone feel comfortable in their dealings. I think the Iranians feel very good about where they will be when it's all said and done. They just hope that BHO does not take the deal to Congress for approval. And I expect him to try and bypass Congress. It's his MO.

[SoonerProphet]

"Compared to the Iranians". I agree that the Saudis have had their share of terrorists. I just don't think they have risen to the level of "State sponsored terrorism" that Iran has.

Fifteen on the nineteen hijackers were Saudis. The Taliban, AQAP, ISIS, Lashkar e Taib in the Mumbai attacks, funded by Saudis. The virulent Wahhabi sect preaches anti-Western hatred all over the Sunni world. The current conflict in Yemen and Syria is fueled by gulf monarchies. Outside of Hezbollah in Lebabon, what have the Iranians done, for comparison sake.

[Serenity Now]

"Compared to the Iranians". I agree that the Saudis have had their share of terrorists. I just don't think they have risen to the level of "State sponsored terrorism" that Iran has.

The fear I have and any American should have is that an Administration that does not have a good record in negotiating anything, is in charge of these negotiations. And quite frankly I do not trust them, and why should I? Based on their track record of lies, misinformation and deceit, they have done nothing to make anyone feel comfortable in their dealings. I think the Iranians feel very good about where they will be when it's all said and done. They just hope that BHO does not take the deal to Congress for approval. And I expect him to try and bypass Congress. It's his MO.
Reasonable assertions. Is there a possible scenario where this is a win/win? There's a chance. We've tried the diplomacy by the bomb (shock & awe) and regime change models. This is a different tract.

I worry more that what's cooking in Yemen will lead to flare up in Saudi and then we'll be quoting Fred Thompson from The Hunt for Red October "This business will get out of control! It will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live through it!" What we do in Iran has little to nothing to do with that, at least to me.

[BoulderSooner79]

"Compared to the Iranians". I agree that the Saudis have had their share of terrorists. I just don't think they have risen to the level of "State sponsored terrorism" that Iran has.

The fear I have and any American should have is that an Administration that does not have a good record in negotiating anything, is in charge of these negotiations. And quite frankly I do not trust them, and why should I? Based on their track record of lies, misinformation and deceit, they have done nothing to make anyone feel comfortable in their dealings. I think the Iranians feel very good about where they will be when it's all said and done. They just hope that BHO does not take the deal to Congress for approval. And I expect him to try and bypass Congress. It's his MO.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are an interesting contrast. If both were to undergo regime change popular with the masses, Iran would become much more US friendly and the Saudi's would become US antagonistic. (Recall who flew the planes on 9/11). Of course, you cannot count on who will be in power the next time around even if some of our 3-letter agencies thinks we can. But foreign policy should take the long view and looking at it for the next decade or 2, we should have some sort of relationship with Iran. I'm not saying this treaty is the best way and as I'm said before, i don't see the Iranian neocons letting it happen anyway. But I am glad we are talking and very happy to see it is genuinely multinational. Refusing to even talk to each other is stupid, but seems to be the MO of neocons and middle school children. There is no rule that by talking you agree to anything, but not talking is guaranteed to fuel the paranoia machine that spawns irrational behavior.

[champions77]

Fifteen on the nineteen hijackers were Saudis. The Taliban, AQAP, ISIS, Lashkar e Taib in the Mumbai attacks, funded by Saudis. The virulent Wahhabi sect preaches anti-Western hatred all over the Sunni world. The current conflict in Yemen and Syria is fueled by gulf monarchies. Outside of Hezbollah in Lebabon, what have the Iranians done, for comparison sake.

Gosh I have you defending Iran. Wow.
The biggest difference in the two is that Iran has actively been pursuing nuclear weapons, and they've made that fact very clear to the world. Iran also fed thousands of fighters through to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight American soldiers. For decades Iran has been labeled the World's Leading exporter of terrorism. Amazing how all of a sudden Iran are good guys. This coming mostly from the left.

[SoonerProphet]

Gosh I have you defending Iran. Wow.
The biggest difference in the two is that Iran has actively been pursuing nuclear weapons, and they've made that fact very clear to the world. Iran also fed thousands of fighters through to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight American soldiers. For decades Iran has been labeled the World's Leading exporter of terrorism. Amazing how all of a sudden Iran are good guys. This coming mostly from the left.

Nowhere has anyone in this thread defended the Iranians or claimed they are good guys, these are delusions conjured up in your brain. Another delusion is the fiction that Iran has a weapons program, our own NIE refutes this false claim.

[Serenity Now]

Gosh I have you defending Iran. Wow.
The biggest difference in the two is that Iran has actively been pursuing nuclear weapons, and they've made that fact very clear to the world. Iran also fed thousands of fighters through to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight American soldiers. For decades Iran has been labeled the World's Leading exporter of terrorism. Amazing how all of a sudden Iran are good guys. This coming mostly from the left.

Decades? Like, since they had that wink, wink deal with Reagan and Ollie North. Why does everyone want to forget this took place? Bueller? Bueller?

[hawaii 5-0]

Gosh I have you defending Iran. Wow.
The biggest difference in the two is that Iran has actively been pursuing nuclear weapons, and they've made that fact very clear to the world. Iran also fed thousands of fighters through to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight American soldiers. For decades Iran has been labeled the World's Leading exporter of terrorism. Amazing how all of a sudden Iran are good guys. This coming mostly from the left.


I faintly remember a US President who sold arms to Iran. And then they tried to make his Fall Guy into some Hero.

Takes some brass ones.

5-0

[Serenity Now]

I faintly remember a US President who sold arms to Iran. And then they tried to make his Fall Guy into some Hero.

Takes some brass ones.

5-0

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/oliver-l-north/bio/#s=m-q

Somethings missing from that bio...

[champions77]

Decades? Like, since they had that wink, wink deal with Reagan and Ollie North. Why does everyone want to forget this took place? Bueller? Bueller?

Yes since 1979. Most would say that qualifies as decades.

[TAFBSooner]

Yes since 1979. Most would say that qualifies as decades.

. . . and Iran-Contra happened when, no later than 1988. So less than one decade after the hostage crisis. Who was consorting with the enemy then?

[champions77]

. . . and Iran-Contra happened when, no later than 1988. So less than one decade after the hostage crisis. Who was consorting with the enemy then?

Done only to secure the release of seven American hostages.

[hawaii 5-0]

Yes since 1979. Most would say that qualifies as decades.


Seems like yesterday.

I guess we can now forget about the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights. That happened centuries ago. Why remember such unimportant things?

5-0

[hawaii 5-0]

The Bottom Line still stands.....

Did a US President sell arms to Iran ? We're they the enemy (after the Shah ?) Was he called to task for his actions ?


5-0

[Serenity Now]

Done only to secure the release of seven American hostages.

When a Democratic president negotiates the fate of hostages it's a national crisis of capitulation. Ironically, one of the boldest moves (that we know about) in regards to hostages made by a President was the failed attempt by Carter. [please don't use that to drill down on the Presidential prowess of Carter, just a statement] Hell, it's alleged that Reagan's people negotiated to DELAY the release of the Iranian hostages until after the election. That's a whole different level of negotiation. Something just doesn't smell right in that whole thing. And, ironically, Israel was involved in Iran-contra.

I also don't have too big of a problem with a one time scenario to make an Iran-Contra like agreement to secure lives. It was apparently an ongoing situation. I'm must saying that criticism of the left on working with Iran rings hollow in light of those facts.

[hawaii 5-0]

Heavens !!!

I musta missed the Memo.

Someone please tell me in what year everything before that was forgotten and forgiven.

5-0

[TAFBSooner]

Done only to secure the release of seven American hostages.

Umm, No.

It was also done to raise money to fund Reagan's illegal support for the Contras in Nicaragua, against the expressed desire of Congress. That's why it's called Iran-Contra.

Mr. Reagan now being the right's patron saint, that must mean it's OK for a president to go around the desires of Congress in foreign policy. Oh, wait . . .

[TAFBSooner]

Iran-Contra must not be very interesting. Only liberals have mentioned it for the last 20 hours.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Iran-Contra must not be very interesting. Only liberals have mentioned it for the last 20 hours.

Give me a f'n break...you might wanna clean up your own back yard before you start yell'n about other peeps.

[Serenity Now]

Give me a f'n break...you might wanna clean up your own back yard before you start yell'n about other peeps.

You can't even acknowledge the irony of it all?

[TAFBSooner]

Give me a f'n break...you might wanna clean up your own back yard before you start yell'n about other peeps.

I was messin' with y'all. I don't care whether it's Dems or Rs; the president or the Congress. I will support whoever keeps us out of stupid wars.

[okie52]

Iran-Contra must not be very interesting. Only liberals have mentioned it for the last 20 hours.

Well that and its about 30 years ago...not exactly a current event.

[Serenity Now]

Well that and its about 30 years ago...not exactly a current event.

Unless we want to talk voodoo economics, or staring down the Russians (or referring to astrology for reference) then you guys act like it's the last quarter.

[rock on sooner]

Unless we want to talk voodoo economics, or staring down the Russians (or referring to astrology for reference) then you guys act like it's the last quarter.

Don't forget about falling asleep in cabinet meetings and eating
Jelly Bellies...:devilish:

[okie52]

Unless we want to talk voodoo economics, or staring down the Russians (or referring to astrology for reference) then you guys act like it's the last quarter.

I certainly don't mind pubs being criticized for bad policy.

Those are fine to talk about when they relate to current events. So is Reagan's failed amnesty of 30 years ago which hasn't stopped many from ignoring that or trying to repeat it. It's as though it never happened.