Iran deal

[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/person...rth/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 . . .